← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9894/2022dismissed

M.Nagarajan v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-06-14Honourable Mr Justice K.Murali Shankar2 pages

CRL OP(MD). No.9894 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14.06.2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR CRL OP(MD). No.9894 of 2022

1. M.Nagarajan

2. Prabhakaran @ Prabha ... Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 1 & 2 Vs THE STATE REP BY, The Inspector of Police, Ramjee Nagar Police Station, Trichy District.

(Crime No.383 of 2021) ... Respondent/Complainant V.Selvam

...Petitioner/Defacto Complainant

in CRL MP(MD)No. 6437 OF 2022 For Petitioners : Mr.V.Angusamy, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

For Intervenor : Mr.K.Kevinkaran,Advocate.

in CRL MP(MD)No. 6437 OF 2022 PETITION FOR BAIL Under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.383 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A.1 & A.2, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.04.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C., altered into Sections 498(A) and 304(B) IPC, in Crime No.383 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner's elder son and the defacto complainant's daughter are husband and wife and due to wedlock, they have been blessed with one female children. During the time of marriage, the defacto complainant offered 46 sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles worth about Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused and after marriage, the petitioners' family demanded more dowry and harassed the defacto complainant's daughter. Due to that, the defacto complainant's daughter poured kerosene on her along with her daughter and set fire and as a result, both of them died. Hence, the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.9894 of 2022 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners and other accused had killed the defacto complainant's daughter and grand daughter brutally.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer, after completing the enquiry, has submitted a report stating that dowry harassment was the reason for the suicide of the deceased Uma Maheswari. 6.Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioners and also the facts that the petitioners are in judicial custody only from 25.04.2022 and that investigation is pending as stated by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 14/06/2022 / TRUE COPY / 20/06/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAMJEE NAGAR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

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

+1. CC to M/S.K.KEVIN KARAN, Advocate SR.No.5645(I)

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9894 of 2022 Date :14/06/2022 PKP/JM/SAR-4/20.06.2022/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2