P.Madhu Mohana Sundaram v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22/10/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI
1. P.Madhu Mohana Sundaram,
2. P.Vatchala,
3. G.Thilagavathi, ... Petitioners/Accused (Rank Not Known) Vs 1.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli Distrit.
(Cr.No.not known of 2021).
... Respondent/Complainant 2.M.RAJESWARI ... PETITIONER / Intervening Petitioner / Defacto Complainant in Crl.OP(MD)No.8322/2021 For Petitioners : M/s.Abdul Subahan.K.M, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.D.Rajaboobathy for Mr.P.Rajkumar PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime.No. Not known of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498(A) and 294(b) of IPC in crime No.Not known of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant took place on 23.11.2012. After the marriage, the petitioner and others demanded dowry from the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents and there is no cognizable offence made out as against the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent police submitted that the investigation is yet to be completed. 5.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant is a fatherless girl and she is depending on her mother. Taking advantage of the same, these petitioners have exploited the victim girl and also have not returned the jewels.
6.Considering the fact that it is matrimonial dispute, this Court by an earlier order dated 23.09.2021, granted interim protection to the petitioner enabling them to appear before the respondent police for a period of two weeks and co-operate for the enquiry and also directed the respondent police to file a report before this Court on the next hearing.
7.Today i.e on 22.10.2021, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the respondent Police has filed a report before this Court, wherein it is stated that despite several summons, the petitioner has not appeared before respondent police and co-operated for enquiry.
8.Considering the rival submissions and also considering the conduct of the petitioner in obtaining an order of interim protection by submitting that the petitioner was ready to co-operate with the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/10/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
CP 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAYAMKOTTAI ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRIT.
2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14155 of 2021 Date :22/10/2021 SB/PN/SAR-II/10.11.2021/3P/3C