Athinarayanasamy v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twentieth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) Nos.12024 and 12025 of 2016 1 ATHINARAYANASAMY 2 VIJAYAKUMAR 3 RAJIV GANDHI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 IN CRL OP(MD)No.12024 OF 2016 BHARATH ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRL OP(MD)No.12025 OF 2016 Vs THE STATE, REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SATTUR ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 12 OF 2016. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S M.SOLAISAMY, Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETITIONS 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 4, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506(i) IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.12 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the de facto complainant and A.1 was solemnized on 14.06.2012. At the time of marriage, 8 sovereigns of gold jewels, cash of Rs.10,000/- and also household articles worth Rs.10,000/- were given as dowry. The petitioners made false statement with regard to the status of A.1 and A.1 married the de facto complainant. After marriage, all the petitioners demanded more dowry.

The father of the de facto complainant purchased a plot in the name of the de facto complainant. The petitioners pressurised her to sell the said plot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

and give the money to set right the debts of A.2. The father of the de facto complainant arranged a T.V. Mechanic shop for A.1 and he did not do any work properly. All the petitioners consumed liquor together and when the same was questioned by the de facto complainant, the petitioners abused her, attacked and tortured her and thrown out her from the matrimonial home and also threatened her with dire consequences. On complaint case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioners is that they are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant demanding more dowry and also threatened her with dire consequences. Investigation is pending.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and accordingly these petitions are dismissed. sd/- 20/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATTUR ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

SMN CSL/GSV-PM/SAR-I/25.07.2016 : 2P/3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.12024 and 12025 of 2016 Date :20/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/