Saravana Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18/11/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

1. Saravana Kumar

2. Sekar

3. Amirtham

4. Thangamani

5. Saravanan ... Petitioners/Accused Rank Nos.1 to 5 Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manapparai, Trichy District.

(In Crime No.29 of 2020).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: Mr.S.Mohammed Kasim, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 29 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A5, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 294(B), 417, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in Crime No.29 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2020 the first petitioner has performed betrothal with the defcto complainant's daughter and fixed date for marriage to be held on 30.10.2020. While 1/3

being so, all of a sudden the petitioners had stopped the marriage and also demanded more dowry from the defacto complainant to marry his daughter. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the crime has been registered against the petitioner. 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that absolutely there is no demand of dowry and all the allegations are false. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the engagement was performed between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant's daughter on 16.09.2020. Thereafter, the first petitioner refused to marry the victim and also demanded more dowry.

6.On perusal of the records, it is seen that after engagement between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant's daughter, the petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant's daughter. 7.Considering the above circumstances and also considering the fact that there is no dowry demand, 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 two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, Trichy District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(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;

2/3

(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 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/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 18/11/2020 / 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, MANAPPARAI, TRICHY DISTRICT.

2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANAPPARAI, TRICHY DISTRICT.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13069 of 2020 Date :18/11/2020 vsg/dss AE/AKM/SAR-III (23.11.2020) 3P 5C 3/3