Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.8310 of 2015 KUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAMAYANALLUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT, CR.NO.129/2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.V.KANNAN Advocate For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1, was arrested on 15.04.2015 and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offence punishable under section 174 Cr.P.C later it was altered into Sections 306 of I.P.C and 4(B) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.129 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused have made adverse comments against the character of the deceased which lead to her death by suicide.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de-facto complainant has not made any allegations against the accused in the complaint given on 11.04.2015 and after the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer is over, the de-facto complainant has changed her version and falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that originally the de-facto complainant has stated that the deceased had contacted the de-facto complainant stating that her daughter Swatha was not feeling well and requested her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for vibuthi from the Astologer and when she went to the spot, she found the deceased committed suicide. In the R.D.O., enquiry also the de-facto

complainant has not stated anything about the accused. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the accused have criticised the deceased about her character and therefore, she committed suicide. It is further submitted that all the accused were arrested and the second accused, who is a lady was granted bail by the Sessions Court, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.3239 of 2015 dated 20.04.2015.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on executing a 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 Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders.

sd/- 29/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT,MADURAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI. 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAMAYANALLUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.V.KANNAN Advocate SR.No.23321

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8310 of 2015 Date :29/04/2015 PA/29.04.2015/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/