Aravindan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of October Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD) No.14066 of 2018 ARAVINDAN ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIRANGAM, TRICHY DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.9 OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT HARSHAPRADHA ... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.B.JAMEEL ARASU, Advocate For Respondent : Mrs.M.ANANTHA DEVI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : Mr.K.SIVABALAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) I.P.C, in Crime No.09 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. During the time of marriage, the defacto complainant's parents have given 50 sovereign of gold jewels and silver worth about Rs.2,00,000/- as a dowry. After the marriage, the parents of the petitioner causing mental agony to the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that during the time of marriage, 50 sovereign of gold jewels, Rs.2,00,000/- silver articles were given as dowry to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
After the marriage, the parents of the petitioner frequently picked up the quarrel with the defacto complainant and also demanded 100 sovereign of gold as additional dowry. He further submitted that the petitioner come forward with this present anticipatory bail petition, suppressing all the material facts alleging that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the investigation is pending. 6.Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Trichy and on his executing 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
7.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.
sd/- 09/10/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, TRICHY.
2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIRANGAM, TRICHY DISTRICT.
4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to MR.B.JAMEEL ARASU Advocate SR.No.19190 +1CC TO MR.K.SIVABALAN, Advocate, Sr No.19234 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14066 of 2018 Date :09/10/2018 MS/PN/SAR-4/10.10.2018/2P.7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/