T.Baskaran v. Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth day of May Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.7394 of 2019 1 T.BASKARAN 2 B.RENUKA MARRY 3 B.SAMPOULRAJ ... PETITIONERS / A2 TO A4 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THALLAKULAM, MADURAI CITY.

IN CRIME NO.6 OF 2019 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.R.ARAVIND RAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.R.ANANDARAJ, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused No.2 to 4, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.6 of 2019, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. Due to family dispute, the petitioners and other accused harassed the defacto complainant by demanding more dowry, abused her by using the filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences.

Thus, on complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners and others. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons, they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged that due to family dispute, the petitioners and other accused harassed the defacto complainant by demanding more dowry, abused her by using the filthy

language and also threatened her with dire consequences. The petitioners are in-laws to victim, on the other hand, the petitioners are not the main accused in the alleged occurrence. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for completing the investigation. Since the alleged occurrence had happened in the family of the defacto complainant, if these type of petitions are dismissed, the same may lead further consequences in the family of the defacto complainant. More than that since both parties are related to each other, question of tampering evidence does not arise. So, on considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail with some conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Additional Mahila (Judicial Magistrate Level) Court, Madurai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(I) the petitioners as well as the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhar Card or any other identity cards issued by the Government, in proof of their address, along with the surety bonds. (ii) the petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police daily 10.00 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (iv) the petitioners shall co-operate for the investigation and the trial. The petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trail and in event of the petitioners abscond, the respondent police shall register a case as provided under Section 229-A IPC;

(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners shall stand automatically cancelled and 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'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

sd/- 29/05/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT, (JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE LEVEL), MADURAI.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THALLAKULAM, MADURAI CITY.

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

+1 CC to M/s.R.ARAVIND RAJ, Advocate ( SR-8962[I] dated 30/05/2019 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7394 of 2019 Date :29/05/2019 JM/PN/SAR 2/04.06.2019/3P/6C