Karunanithi, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.2707 of 2018 1 KARUNANITHI 2 MULLAIKKANNU ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PATTUKKOTTAI, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.10 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners: M/S.R.ILAYARAJA, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 463, 466, 498(A), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.10 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners. The petitioners arranged the marriage between the de facto complainant and to their son, namely Kumar by suppressing the fact that he is suffering from kidney failure. At present, the husband of the de facto complainant is no more. Now, the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant by demanding more dowry. Hence, the present case has been registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they are no way connected with the offences, and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side are considered. Admittedly, the de facto complainant is the daughter-in-law of these petitioners. As of now, the husband of the de facto complainant is no more. After death of her husband, she lodged this complaint in which, she made allegation as the petitioners demanded more dowry. As per the case of the prosecution before registration of this case, the very same de facto complainant lodged another one complaint with same allegation and the said case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

was closed by the respondent Police after completing enquiry. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it clearly reveal that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation.

6.Taking the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, they 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, Pattukkottai, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(i) the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

(ii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

(iii)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners shall stand automatically cancelled and 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].

sd/- 21/02/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATTUKKOTTAI.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANAJVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PATTUKKOTTAI, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.R.ILAYARAJA Advocate SR.No.2874 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2707 of 2018 Date :21/02/2018 MS/CM-VR/SAR.2/05.03.2018/2P.6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/