Tamilselvi v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Dated: 08/09/2022 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Tamilselvi : Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs.
State rep. By The Inspector of Police, S.V.Mangalam Police Station, Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.57 of 2022) : Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Criminal side) For Intervenor : Mr.T.Veerakumar, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C PRAYER:- For Bail in Crime No.57 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER:- The Court made the following order:- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A3 was arrested, on 17/07/2022 and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offence under section 174(3) Cr.P.C @ 498(A) and 304(B) IPC, in Crime No.57 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the father of the deceased. He lodged a complaint stating that the deceased Priyanka was married to A1, on 10/07/2016. At the time of marriage, she was provided with sufficient house-hold articles, seervarisai, jewels, etc. After the above said marriage, they started living in joint family along with in-laws. During the above said period, he was informed that the father-in-law Sethupandiyan was behaving indifferently and indecently with the above said Priyanka and that was informed and intimated to A1. But he did not take any proper care. Similarly, the mother-in-law namely Tamilselvi, sister-in-law namely Ranjani and the husband of the 1/3
above said Ranjani also joined together and caused unnecessary trouble. There was a compromise between the husband and wife and later, they started living in Madurai individually. After three months, again they came to R.S.Mangalam and started living there. Again, the trouble was started by the father-in-law, in which the other accused persons have also joined together. So the above said Priyanka came to the maternal home. Later, there was a compromise. Again, she was taken back to the matrimonial home. Again, there was a trouble. On 16/06/2022 at 04.30 pm, he was informed that Priyanka is behaving improperly and she must be taken by them. So immediately they went to S.P. Mangalam. They were informed that she committed suicide. On the above said occurrence, the case was registered on the basis of the statement under section 174(3) Crl.P.C.
3.During the course of investigation, it was found that there was continuous demand, harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons demanding dowry and money. Because of the domestic trouble, that was created by the accused persons, the above said Priyanka committed suicide. Since the death occurred within seven years from the date of marriage, the case was altered to 304 (B) IPC and the accused persons arrested, except A4 and A5. 4.Seeking bail, the mother-in-law, who is arrayed as A3 has filed this petition.
5.Heard both sides. The intervenor is also present. He was also heard.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even as per the report that has been submitted by RDO, absolutely, there was no basis for the allegation to the effect that there was a dowry demand. Because of the domestic issue, because of her ill-tempered attitude, committed suicide in a fit of anger and absolutely, there was no commission of abetment of suicide by this petitioner.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener/de-facto complainant would submit that there is specific allegation to the effect that the father-in-law behaved indecently with the above said Priyanka and that was intimated to this petitioner and A1, who is the husband. But they did not take care and this petitioner also harassed the deceased, demanding dowry. So because of the torture and abetment, she committed suicide. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that absolutely, no material is available in favour of the petitioner to the effect that there is no involvement of the petitioner in the abetment of suicide. Considering the gravity of the offence, the learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.
2/3
8.Reading of the statement of witnesses shows that the petitioner by joining hands with the other accused persons, used to ill-treat and harass the deceased. It is seen that this petitioner asked the deceased to do the household work and that was not liked by the deceased. In this case, most part of the investigation is also over.
9.Considering the fact that most part of the investigation is over and also considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner, the petitioner/A3 is ordered to be released on bail with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner/A3 is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am until further orders.
sd/- 08/09/2022 / TRUE COPY / 08/09/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1. THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SINGAMPUNARI.
2. DO-THROUGH : THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S.V. MANGALAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
4. THE OFFICER-INCHARGE, SUB-JAIL, PARAMAKUDI.
5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14979 of 2022 Date :08/09/2022 USK/VR/SAR-II/08.09.2022/3P/6C 3/3