Krishnaveni v. The Inspector Of Police

BBEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.02.2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Krishnaveni

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

-vsThe State represented by The Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station, Trichy District.

(in Cr.No.276 of 2022)

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest by the respondent Police with respect to Cr.No.276 of 2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor ****

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC in Crime No.276 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution, as per the de-facto complainant, is that his own brother was driver by profession and he has got two children. Two years prior to the occurrence, due to CIVID-19, his wife died and he used to go as a driver for one Bullet Raja and at that time, he had developed illicit relationship with one Krishnaveni, wife of the said Bullet Raja. While so, on 29.10.2022 around 8.15 pm., while his brother had gone to temple, the said Bullet Raja along with his wife Krishnaveni had quarrelled with his brother and during such time, the said Bullet Raja had stabbed his brother, due to which, he sustained injuries and died on the spot. Based on the complaint given by him, a case has been registered in 1/3

Crime No.276 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC. Later, during the course of investigation, the said Bullet Raja was arrested and he had confessed that there was illicit relationship between his wife and the deceased and the deceased had taken the jewels of his wife and thereby, his wife was having enmity with the deceased and thereby, on her instigation, he had engaged other two persons and committed the murder of the victim by stabbing him with knife.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and a false case has been foisted against her. He would also submit that this is the second petition for anticipatory bail and the earlier petition was dismissed on the ground that the investigation is at preliminary stage. He would further submit that the motive itself is doubtful and that if there had been illicit relationship between the petitioner and the deceased, as projected by the prosecution, there cannot be a possibility of the petitioner instigating her husband to commit the murder of deceased. He would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated based on the confession given by the arrested accused, namely, her husband.

He would further submit that the husband of the petitioner, who was arrested, has been released on bail. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that this is the second petition for anticipatory bail and the earlier petition was dismissed by this Court., by order, dated 05.01.2023. He would also submit that the petitioner is the second accused and she is the wife of A1. The petitioner had developed illicit relationship with the deceased Chinnarasu, who is a driver by profession. During such time, the petitioner had also given her jewels as well as money to the said Chinnarasu and he has not returned the same, due to that, she brewed grudge against the deceased.

Later, she had confessed the same with her husband and thereafter, her husband along with hirelings have committed the murder of the deceased. He would further submit that the investigation is in preliminary stage and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility of the petitioner interfering with the investigation. He would also submit that the petitioner is the person, who has called the victim to the scene of occurrence and thereafter, the victim had come to the scene of occurrence and the murder was committed there. He would submit that investigation is pending and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required.

5.Heard and perused the materials available on record. 6.Taking into consideration fact that the petitioner was also present in the scene of occurrence and she is the person, who has called the victim to the place and that there are call records and also considering the submission of the learned Additional Public 2/3

Prosecutor that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition stands dismissed. sd/- 06/02/2023 / TRUE COPY / /02/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

CMR TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAMYAPURAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2181 of 2023 Date :06/02/2023 VA/BUC/SAR-4/14.02.2023/2P/3C 3/3