Raguldravid v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. RAGULDRAVID S/o. Krishnan, No.642, Indira Nagar, Melpallipattu Vilage and Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. USHA W/o. Krishnan, No.642, Indira Nagar, Melpallipattu Vilage and Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

3. NIVETHA D/o. Krishnan, No.642, Indira Nagar, Melpallipattu Vilage and Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District

4. PARIMALA D/o.Selvaraji, Ambedkar Nagar, Melpallipattu Vilage and Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police Melchengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No. 95 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER: To enlarge the petitioners on bail in event of their arrest in Crime No. 95 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of Respondent Police and thus renderjustice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.E.Sathiyaraj Elangovan For Respondent(s):

Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 351(2), 85, 86(b) of BNS Act (Corresponding Section 294(b), 323, 506, 498(A) of IPC in Crime No.95 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant had a love affair; that thereafter the de-facto complainant married one Thilipan; that the first petitioner had informed the said Thilipan about his

relationship with the de-facto complainant; that hence the said Thilipan got separated; that thereafter the de-facto complainant married the first petitioner; that the first petitioner and his mother and sisters had caused cruelty on account of dowry demand and thus committed the aforesaid offences. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons who have been falsely implicated in this case and in any case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required and therefore, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and confirmed the aforesaid facts.

5. Though there are allegations relating to dowry demand, the allegations primarily disclose matrimonial differences between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioners, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the

petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruvannamalai on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

29-04-2025 Jai Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The State Rep by the Inspector of Police Melchengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No. 95 of 2025).

2. The Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruvannamalai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

SUNDER MOHAN J.

jai CRL OP No. 13364 of 29-04-2025