Purusothaman v. The Inspector Of Police

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.7050 of 2015 PURUSOTHAMAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERIYODU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

IN CR.NO. 201 OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.SURESH KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 174 Cr.P.C. @ 498(A) and 304-B of IPC in Crime No.201 of 2014 on the file of the respondent Police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner / A1 is the husband of the deceased and A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. All of them, harassed the deceased by demanding more dowry and due to which, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that on the basis of the compliant given by the mother of the deceased, initially a case has been registered against the petitioner under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, after the death of the deceased, the case was altered into Section 498-A and 304 of IPC. It is further submitted that since the deceased died within 7 years of marriage, RDO enquiry was conducted and thereafter the case was registered against the accused persons and therefore, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.This Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6634 of 2014 in the petition filed by A2 and A3, perused the case papers and held as per the RDO report there was no dowry demand and the deceased died due to family dispute. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedachandur, Dindigul District, and on executing a bond for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10 am until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 16/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEDACHANDUR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 2.

-DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERIYODU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.R.SURESH KUMAR Advocate SR.No.19275 SR/IV : 21.04.2015 : 2P/6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7050 of 2015 Date :16/04/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/