Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8545/2020dismissed

A.Murugan v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-08-18Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

CRL OP(MD). No.8545 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18/08/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN CRL OP(MD). No.8545 of 2020 1.A.Murugan 2.Samudhrakani ... Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3 Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sathankulam Police Station, Tuticorin District.

Crime No.334/2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.R.M.Makesh Kumaravel, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.334 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners who are arrayed as A-2 & A-3 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under section 304(b) of IPC, in Crime No.334 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the father and the second petitioner is the mother of A-1 and the defacto complainant is the father of the deceased, namely; Vennila. The deceased is the wife of A-1 and their marriage was took place on 10.02.2019 and they are having male kid. In the meantime, the deceased Vennila was found dead in the mysterious circumstances in the petitioners' home on 05.08.2020 at 03.00 p.m. Based on a complaint preferred by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered.

3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.8545 of 2020

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners herein are parents of A-1 and they are not harassing the deceased. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side)appearing for the respondent police would submit that the First Information Report was registered for the offence under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. and investigation is still pending, so far as the offence is not altered. He would further submit that these petitioners are fatherin-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, namely; Vennila.

6. Taking note of the submission of the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) and considering the fact that investigation is still pending and so far as the offence is not altered, and hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, the respondent police is directed not to harass the petitioners in the guise of investigation. sd/- 18/08/2020 / TRUE COPY / /08/2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATHANKULAM POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8545 of 2020 Date :18/08/2020 KSA TK/AKM/SAR.3/21.08.2020/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2