Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighth day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.304 of 2016 RAMESH @ RAMESH KUMAR ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

CR NO.148 OF 2015. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.J.LAWRANCE Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, 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 the sole accused in Crime No.148 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306 of I.P.C., and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the deceased got married on 27.07.2009 and after the marriage, the petitioner in an inebriated mood and used to torture the de-facto complainant and on his torture, she committed suicide and on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, case has been registered for offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and subsequently, altered into Section 306 of I.P.C.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner and the deceased both were living together and in the wedlock, two female children were born. He never harassed his wife by demanding dowry. However, due to depression and sickness, deceased has committed suicide on her own. In order to retaliate, the de-facto complainant and his family members came to the petitioner's land and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attacked the parents of the petitioner and due to that, the petitioner's father died on 09.05.2015 and he gave a complaint and

case has been registered in Crime No.213 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 302 of I.P.C., against the de-facto complainant and three others.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that earlier two petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the investigation is almost over.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the investigation is almost over at this stage, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur and 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., 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/- 08/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEDASANDUR.

2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL DIST. +1. CC to M/S J.LAWRANCE Advocate SR.No.1610 akm/21.01.2016/ 2p- 6c/MP/PM/SAR-II ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.304 of 2016 Date :08/01/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/