Pounathal v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thusday, the Thirteenth day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.15381 of 2015 1 POUNATHAL 2 MURUGATHAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AYAKUDI POLICE STATION, AYAKUDI DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 246 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. ANANTH C.RAJESH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who are arrayed as A2 and A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC in Crime No.246 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. According to the de facto complainant viz., Packiyalakshmi, her elder daughter was married to the first accused Ramasamy, about three years ago and out of the wedlock, they have a child, aged about 1 1⁄2 years. Though the accused did not demand dowry at the time of marriage, and immediately after the marriage, they have started demanding dowry from her daughter and also harassed her. Thereafter, she was provided with 6 sovereigns of jewels, Cot, Mixie, Fridge and other household articles as dowry and even thereafter, the accused have demanded more dowry and harassed the daughter of the de facto complainant and therefore, on 02.08.2015 she committed suicide by hanging.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A1 Was already arrested and the petitioners are in-laws and the deceased was having illicit intimacy with some other man, which was objected by the accused and therefore, she committed suicide.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and she contended that within three years of marriage, the deceased committed suicide leaving her 1 1⁄2 year old child viz., Karthik. It is further submitted that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer would reveal that the accused have demanded more dowry, which let to suicide by the deceased. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Considering the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 13/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AYAKUDI POLICE STATION, AYAKUDI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.15381 of 2015 Date :13/08/2015 GJM/SKN-SK/SARR(J)-19.8.15-2P-3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/