Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/7009/2015allowed

Anjalai F/35, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2015-04-16Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.7009 of 2015 1 ANJALAI 2 SUBRAMANI ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIYYAMPATTI POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT, (CRIME NO.77/2015).

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.BOOMIRAJAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are A2 and A3 and they were arrested on 05.02.2015 and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under sections 366(A), 498(A) and 304 of IPC @ 306 and 366(A) of IPC, in Crime No.77 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2015, when the deceased was travelling in an Auto along with A1, all the accused persons scolded the deceased and thereafter, she jumped from the Auto and sustained injuries and later, she died.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A1 and the deceased fell in love with each other and their marriage was performed against the wishes of both the families and at that time of occurrence, due to family dispute, a quarrel arose between A1 and the deceased and subsequently, she jumped from the Auto, for which the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.

4.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the deceased is 17 years old and she was scolded by all the accused persons. 6.It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the enquiry conducted by the RDO shows that there is no dowry harassment.

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are in jail since 05.02.2015, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

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

8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, on each of them executing a personal 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 16/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANAPPARAI, TRICHY DISTRICT. 2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIYYAMPATTI POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT. 5 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, CENTRAL PRISON (WOMEN), TRICHY. 6 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, MANAPPARAI, TRICHY DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.R.BOOMIRAJAN Advocate SR.No.19232 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7009 of 2015 Date :16/04/2015 PBK/SAR-I 17/04/2015 ::2P-8C:

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