Jeyaraj v. State Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.17166 of 2015 1 JEYARAJ 2 ARUMUGAM F.M 3 CHINNIAH ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE KEELAVALAVU POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT CR NO.332OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S T.A.EBENEZER Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.Prabha Government 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 accused Nos.1 to 3, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 174 Cr.P.C., altered into 306 of IPC, in Crime No.332 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.According to the defacto complainant, her daughter Sudha got married to the first accused about 1 1⁄2 years ago and at that time, she was provided with 7 sovereigns of gold jewels and other household articles and thereafter, the accused harassed her daughter demanding additional dowry and therefore, she left the matrimonial home and she was residing with defacto complainant. Further, case of the defacto complainant is that on 11.08.2015, when his daughter has gone to Nagamman Temple to worship God, the first accused abused her in the presence of the public and therefore, she committed suicide by consuming rat poison. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even according to the defacto complainant, the deceased was living away from her husband for one year and on 11.08.2015, the deceased visited the temple along with other three young boys without knowing the fact that the first accused was working in the temple, when that was questioned by the first accused, she committed suicide on 12.08.2015. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry and he has given a report, dated 14.08.2015 stating that there was no dowry demand from the accused. It is further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely roped in this case with an ulterior motive.

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

6.Considering the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur and on each of them executing 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

7. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 29/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR.

2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEELAVALAVU POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S T.A.EBENEZER Advocate SR.No.57344. TS/01.10.2015/2P - 6C SK-SKN/SAR -II

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.17166 of 2015 Date :29/09/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/