Venkatesh v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Third day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.10923 of 2017 1 VENKATESH 2 PADMAVATHY 3 KRISHNA RAMANUJAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 to 3 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KOVILPATTI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 7/2017. RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.M.MICHAEL BHARATHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. 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, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C.

, and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.7 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 02.02.2014 at Srirengam. The first petitioner was working as a Programme Manager in SRM Company. At the time of marriage, the defacto complainant's family gave 40 soverign of gold and spent a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as marriage expenses. Thereafter, the first petitioner insisted the defacto complainant to give additional dowry of 20 soverign of jewels. Hence, on 22.11.2016, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the first petitioner and his family members for the offences of dowry and illegal intimacy with A5, namely, Manimozhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.

gov.in/hcservices/ 3.

offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submitted that on an earlier occasion, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the second and third petitioner on 04.09.2017.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the state would submit that the first petitioner filed a H.M.O.P. against his wife for divorce under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Hence, this anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.

sd/- 23/10/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I KOVILPATTI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TUTICORIN DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KOVILPATTI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10923 of 2017 Date :23/10/2017 SMA/CM/SAR-4/03.11.2017:2P/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/