Rajavelan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19/05/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRL OP(MD). No.9435 of 2022 Rajavelan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.52 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mithun Chakravarthi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.52 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded judicial custody on 18.04.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A) IPC @ 294(B), 498(A) and 306 IPC in Crime No.52 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner and the deceased got married on 03.03.2006 and they blessed with two male children. There is a dispute between both the families regarding property and a civil suit in O.S.No.68 of 2011 is pending. In this circumstance on 11.04.2022, ear boring function was conducted wherein, it was alleged that A3, demanded additional seervarisai from victim family, therebya quarrel arose between the parties. On 17.04.2022, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

victim called the defacto complainant through phone and informed that she was subjected to harassment by petitioner's family members. At about 1.30 p.m. the petitioner informed the defacto complainant about consumption of poison by the victim girl and that she had been admitted in one private hospital and later taken her to Government Hospital, Dindigul. On the next day, unfortunately victim girl passed away. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no previous antecedents as against the petitioner, but the respondent police falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, who is arrayed as A1. The petitioner demanded dowry from the date of marriage onwards and thereby forced the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poison. Even prior to the occurrence, the deceased informed her parents that she was harassment by the petitioner and his family members.

5.Considering the fact that the deceased committed suicide due to the dowry harassment made by the petitioner and investigation is at initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- 19/05/2022 / TRUE COPY / / /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

vsd TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINNALAPATTI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT JAIL.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9435 of 2022 Date :19/05/2022 SP/JM/SAR IV/30/05/2022/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/