Suseendran v. The Deputy Superintendent Of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirtieth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.9004 of 2016 SUSEENDRAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs 1.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VEDACHANDUR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
2.THE STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ALAGARSAMI ... INTERVENOR For Petitioner : M/S J.ANANDKUMAR, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S.N.MOHIDEEN BASHA, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.05.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 174 Cr.P.C. @ Sections 420, 498(A) and 304-B IPC, in Crime No.201 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first accused and the deceased Venkadeshwari, second daughter of defacto complainant was solemnized on 04.06.2015 and they were living together in the matrimonial home at Vadamadurai. The first accused alone went to Krishnagiri from Vadamadurai for his work. The petitioners and A1 demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry from the deceased Venkadeshwari for doing business. On 25.04.2016, the defacto complainant was informed by the A.2 that the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital, Dindigul due to her ill health. Subsequently, she was shifted from Government Hospital, Dindigul, to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai for further treatment and that the defacto complainant came to know that, she died on 26.04.2016 at
about 10.15 am. On the complaint, given by the de facto complainant, a case has been registered against the accused under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and subsequently altered into Sections 420, 498(A) and 304-B of IPC.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The deceased pressurised the petitioner to shift his working place to his native place and when he refused, in order to threaten him, she consumed poison on her own volition. There is no dowry demand on the side of the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 02.05.2016.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased herself pledged the jewels on 14.11.2015 in Canara Bank, Nagal Nagar Branch, Dindigul and obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and gave it to her mother. The petitioner is not having any jewel of the deceased and prays for bail in favour of the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that R.D.O. Enquiry is conducted and report is awaited. 6.The learned counsel for the intervenor reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that all the jewels given to the deceased at the time of marriage is with the petitioner and at the time of enquiry by R.D.O., details of the jewels given by the de facto complainant were furnished.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 02.05.2016, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall execute 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 Judicial Magistrate, Vedachandur, Dindigul District;
(ii) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders.
(iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
(iv) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
8.The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate, as to whether the petitioner is complying with the condition or not. sd/- 30/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VEDACHANDUR DINDIGUL DISTRICT 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL,MADURAI 4.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VEDACHANDUR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
5.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
6.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +2. CC to M/S J.ANANDKUMAR Advocate SR.No.34135 +One cc to M/S.N.MOHIDEEN BASHA, Advocate, SR.No.34240 smn RL/10C/3P/GSV/PM/SARII/30/6/2016
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9004 of 2016 Date :30/06/2016