Ravindran v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18/09/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN 1.Ravindran 2.R.Athilakshmi ... Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3 Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

Crime No.501/2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: M/s.G.Sridharan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate.

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.501/2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A2 and A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 174(3) of Cr.P.C @ 306 of IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

2. Heard both sides.

3.The marriage between the deceased and the A1 took place in the year 2018. At that time sufficient dowry was given. Thereafter all the accused persons demanded more dowry and harassed the deceased. Hence the deceased said to have committed suicide by hanging. Initially a case was registered under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C and after investigation the case has been altered to Section 306 of IPC.

1/3

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a family dispute between A1 and the deceased and absolutely there is no demand of dowry and the petitioners being in-laws they never harassed the defacto complainant. He would also submit that at the request of defacto complainant family 46 sovereigns of gold jewels of the deceased were given to the defacto complainant family.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that due to harassment made by the petitioners herein the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

6. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that as per the enquiry of Revenue Divisional Officer there is no allegation of demand of dowry.

7.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners herein are only in-laws and there is no allegation of demand of dowry and also the fact that the main allegations are against A1 only, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a)the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions 2/3

have been imposed and the petitioners 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]; and;

(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 18/09/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO I, THOOTHUKUDI.

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIPCOT POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to M/s.G.SRIDHARAN, Advocate ( SR-6491[I] dated 18/09/2020 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9490 of 2020 Date :18/09/2020 AAV TK/PN/SAR.2/21.09.2020/3P/6C 3/3