Pon Gautham Nandha v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC in Cr.No.558 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the deceased one Anushree was solemnized on 01.09.2019. Thereafter, the petitioners, who are the husband and in-laws of the deceased said to have tortured and harassed the deceased and also not returned the dowry amount. Therefore, due to mental stress and agony, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners, who are the husband and in-laws of the deceased said to

have tortured and harassed the deceased and also not returned the dowry amount. Therefore, due to mental stress and agony, the deceased committed suicide. He would further submit that taking into consideration the suicidal note of the deceased, the F.I.R has been registered. However, the petitioners are not co-operating for the RDO enquiry and they are absconding. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. At this Juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suicidal note was not produced by the investigating agency since he raised strong objections against it. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Mr.R.Premchandar, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/Intervenor would submit that the petitioners, who are the husband and in-laws of the deceased said to have tortured and harassed the deceased and also not returned the dowry amount. Therefore, due to mental stress and agony, the deceased committed suicide. He would further submit that the suicidal note of the deceased has also been produced before this Court, wherein she had stated that she was harassed by the petitioners.

Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Considering the conduct of the petitioners and taking into account the suicidal note of the deceased and that they are absconding and not co-operating for the RDO enquiry, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and this case requires a detailed investigation.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 19.12.2022 anu T.V.THAMILSELVI,

J.

anu 19.12.2022