Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/1768/2015disposed of

Subbiah v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-02-03Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Third day of February Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.1768 of 2015 1 SUBBIAH, S/O.SWAMIAPPAN 2 CHINNAMMAL 3 SUBBIAH, S/O.RAMAN 4 THNGAM KONAR 5 DHARMALINGAM 6 MEENA 7 MARUTHAYEE 8 CHINNAIAH ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MELUR, MADURAI DIST.

CR.NO.10/2015 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.A.G.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.10 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 494, 504(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, the petitioners are now before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner Subbiah got married to the de-facto complainant on 18.12.2002 and they have two children through the wedlock. It is alleged by the de-facto complainant that Subbiah would get drunk every day and harass her. He was also demanding money from her for setting up his business. It is seen that during the marriage, 40 sovereigns and cash was given by the de-facto complainant's family to the family of Subbiah. While so, it is alleged that the family members of Subbiah were taunting the de-facto complainant for not begetting a male child. Therefore, they had sent her out two years back and they have married Subbiah to one Meenakshi, who is the 6th petitioner herein.

3.This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that still in villages, the birth of a female child is not welcome and torture is perpetuated on women, who begets female child. This has to be put an end to with an iron hand. Taking into consideration the serious nature of allegations against Subbiah and Chinnammal, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1 and 2 and this petition as against them is dismissed. As far as the petitioners 3 to 8 are concerned, since the allegations are not very serious, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail, but with conditions.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Accordingly, the petitioners 3 to 8 are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur District, on executing a separate 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 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 3 to 5, 7 and 8 shall report before the respondent Police every day 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The 6th petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

[b] the petitioners 3 to 8 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioners 3 to 8 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 3 to 8 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 3 to 8 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]. [e] The Inspector of Police concerned, is directed to send compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), whether the petitioners are complying with the order or not. sd/- 03/02/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

+2. CC to M/S.A.G.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate SR.No.4814 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1768 of 2015 Date :03/02/2015 PBK 06/02/2015 ::2P-7C:

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/