Arunkumar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twentieth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.17312, 17366 & 17368 of 2021 ARUNKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED IN CRL.O.P.No.17312 of 2021 ] 1 THANGARAJ 2 ANITHA [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED IN CRL.O.P.No.17366 of 2021 ] 1 A.VASANTHA 2 A.SATHISH [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED IN CRL.O.P.No.17368 of 2021 ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT IN ALL THE PETITIONS ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RANIPET DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.14/2021) For Petitioner : M/S T.SARAVANAN Advocate [ IN ALL THE PETITIONS ] For Respondents : MR. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) [ IN CRL.O.P.No.17312 of 2021 ] : MR. C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) [ IN CRL.O.P.Nos.17366 & 17368 of 2021 ] PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.14 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 in this case is the husband of the defacto complainant and other accused persons are the in-laws of the defacto complainant respectively. After the marriage, A1 and his family members/other accused persons demanded dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and 50 sovereigns of gold from the defacto complainant and driven her away from the matrimonial home. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that A1 is a Military Man, initially A1 has refused to receive any Seedhanas from the defacto complainant and thereafter, A1 along with his family members demanded dowry from the defacto complainant's family. He further submits that investigation is in preliminary stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions on either side and also the fact that there is a serious allegations made against A1, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to A1/husband . With regard to A2 to A5/other accused persons, being the in-laws of the defacto complainant and there is no serious allegations made against them, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to A2 to A5/other accused persons.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners/A2 to A5 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand Only) each, 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 and on further condition that:

(a)the petitioners/A2 and A5 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners/A3 and A4 shall report before the respondent police as and when required;

(b) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity (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]; and; (f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition in respect of the A1/husband stands dismissed. The Criminal Original Petition in respect of A2 to A5/in-laws stands ordered. -sd/- 20/09/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARAKKONAM.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RANIPET DISTRICT.

+3 CC to M/S T.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NOs.10460,10458 & 10459 CRL OP.NOs.17312,17366 & 17368/2021 Date :20/09/2021 RW 28/09/2021