Karuppaiah v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.12938 of 2016 1 KARUPPAIAH 2 MOOKAN 3 MURUGAYEE ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3/PETITIONERS Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUMAYAM, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
IN CRIME NO. 2 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT For Petitioner : M/S.C.NAGAMUTHU Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN,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 alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 494 IPC, in Crime No.2 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 the first petitioner was solemnized on 04.09.2008. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de-facto complainant gave 10 sovereigns of gold jewels and other house hold articles to her. A female child was born in the wedlock. After the marriage, the petitioners tortured the de-facto complainant by demanding additional dowry and beaten her severely and also threatened her that they will arrange a marriage to the first petitioner with another lady. The petitioners locked the house and thrown her out from the matrimonial home. The de-facto complainant is doing coolie work and maintaining the female child. While so, the de-facto complainant came to know that the petitioners 2 and 3 arranged a marriage to the first petitioner with one Lalitha, D/o.Palanisamy and Rajeswari, and both are residing at Chennai. On complaint, a case has been registered for the offences stated above.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. In compliance with the order passed by this Court, dated 18.08.2016, today, both the de-facto complainant and the petitioners 1 and 3 are present before this Court. The first petitioner admitted that he married one Lalitha and residing at Chennai.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that on receiving a complaint from the de-facto complainant, the case has been registered and investigation is going on.
6. Considering the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and also considering the fact that the petitioners 2 and 3 arranged a marriage to the first petitioner with one Lalitha, while the marriage with the de-facto complainant and the first petitioner is subsisting, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
sd/- 29/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.-I) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUMAYAM, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12938 of 2016 Date :29/08/2016 PA/CK/SAR I/07.09.2016/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/