Prasanna v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand and Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD) No.14201 of 2018 PRASANNA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIRUGANUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.
(IN CRIME NO 139 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.K.SIVABALAN, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.V.NEELAKANDAN, Additional Public Prosecutor. For Intervenor : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Advocate. PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is in judicial custody from 03.07.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., @ 498 (A), 306 of IPC., in Crime No.139 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police. He seeks bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner married the deceased namely Priyadharshini. Their marriage was love marriage. The marriage between them on the opposition of the parents of the deceased. They were not in a talking terms with the deceased. All of sudden, she committed suicide on 03.07.2018 by hanging herself. Hence, the complaint.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the petitioner got married the deceased Priyadharshini and it was love marriage. After their marriage, the parents of the deceased were not in talking terms with them. Due to misunderstanding between the husband and wife, on the fateful day 03.07.2018, the deceased was committed suicide by hanging herself. 5.Mr.A.ThiruvadiKumar, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that there was a dowry demand and he vehemently objected the bail application.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
6.It is seen that admittedly, they were not in talking terms between the defacto complainant and his wife, with the deceased daughter. Further there was no complaint in respect of the cruelty or dowry demand as against the petitioner by the deceased wife. The petitioner was incarceration from 03.07.2018. 7.Considering the period of incarceration and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 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 Court, Lalgudi.
(ii)the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
sd/- 16/08/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, LALGUDI.
2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY.
3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.
4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIRUGANUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.
5.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.K.SIVABALAN, Advocate, SR.No.15615 +1. CC to Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.15664.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14201 of 2018 Date :16/08/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RAM/PN/SAR 1/16.08.2018/2P/8C