Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16015/2018withdrawn dismissed

Meenammal @ Meena v. The Inspector Of Police

2018-09-06Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixth day of September Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD) No.16015 of 2018 1 MEENAMMAL @ MEENA 2 PANDIYAMMAL 3 MUTHUMADATHI ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE IRUKKANKUDI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DT., (CRIME NO. 192 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.M.JOTHIBASU Advocate For Respondent : MRS.M.ANANTHA DEVI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C @ Section 306 I.P.C. in Crime No.192 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The third petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the first petitioner. Accused No.4 is a neighbour. The deceased Pandeeswari is none other than the daughterin-law of the first petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.09.2017 at 11.00 a.m, the deceased has received a missed call from her cell pone. It belongs to A4's husband namely Palkutty. It is stated that the deceased made a call in order to know the identity of the person. It is stated Accused No.4 attended the phone call. It is alleged that the Accused No.4 informs about the incident to Accused No.1 to 3 and all of them have scolded the deceased. Thereby, on 11.09.2017 at 15.45 hours the deceased poured kerosene https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and set fire herself. Immediately, she was rescued by the neighbours and admitted in the Government Hospital. The police has received information about the incident and obtained a statement from the deceased. On the basis of RDO enquiry report, the case was altered into 306 I.P.C.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents. They did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. They have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that all the accused are in-laws of the deceased. The deceased clearly stated in her dying declaration statement that all of them had scolded her at the time of occurrence, thereby, she poured kerosene to her body. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.Considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. In this circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Criminal Original Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

sd/- 06/09/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE IRUKKANKUDI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT , 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16015 of 2018 Date :06/09/2018 MSI/PN/SAR-II/18.09.2018-2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/