Gunasekaran v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Eighth day of January Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.733 of 2019 1 GUNASEKARAN 2 SUBRAMANIAN 3 ANNA POORANI @ BABY 4 RAMYA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARUR.
(IN CRIME NO. 8 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT HEMALATHA ...PETITIONER/INTERVENER/DEFACTO COMPLAIANT For Petitioners : MR.R.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.CHANDRASEKAR,Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : Mr.K.SURESH,Advocate 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 alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 @ into Sections 498(A), 406 and 307 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 506(i)I.P.C in Cr.No.8 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband and the other petitioners are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. The petitioners harassed the defacto complainant by way of demanding dowry and taken custody of the jewels of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the first petitioner alone went back to Belgium to continue his job, where he is working as a Senior Global
Data Manager. On 16.06.2017, the defacto complainant went to Belgium, there also the first petitioner harassed the defacto complainant by demanding dowry and physically tortured the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant is not willing to conduct a family life with the first petitioner and making all sorts of false allegation against the first petitioner and his family members. The petitioners have falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that on 06.11.2016, the first petitioner had gone Belgium and at the time of leaving the petitioners demanded dowry and also abused the defacto complainant using filthy language by degrading the family of the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the complaint has been registered. 6.Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions by learned counsels, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karur on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that: [a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled.
[b]the first and second petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the other petitioners (petitioners 3 & 4) shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation [e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[f] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, 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'bleSupreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
sd/- 28/01/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2, KARUR.
3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARUR.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+2. CC to MR.R.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM Advocate SR.No.1558 PS/PN/SAR-2/31.012019/3P/7C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.733 of 2019 Date :28/01/2019