Allowed

Gnanam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/13344/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing charges under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court imposes reporting conditions on the accused and requires them to appear before a magistrate within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond of Rs.10,000 each, two sureties, and conditions to report to police and appear before magistrate.

Gnanam Vs the Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Ninth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) Nos.13356 & 13344 of 2013

¶6

S.RAJA ... PETITIONER/1^st ACCUSED IN CRL OP(MD)No.13356 of 2013

¶7

1 GNANAM 2 NAVAMANI 3 SUGANTHI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 2 TO 4 IN CRL OP(MD)No.13344 of 2013

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPARANKUNDRAM, MADURAI. MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶11

CRIME NO. 72/2013. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT SAME IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.HALLMARK ASSOCIATES Advocate IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶13

For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶14

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

There are totally four accused. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13356 of 2013 is arrayed as A1 and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13344 of 2013 are arrayed as A2 to A4 and they apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged Commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC r/w Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.72 of 2013, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

According to the defacto complainant, the marriage between her and the first accused was solemnised on 06.04.2011 and out of wedlock, a male child was born and he is aged about 1 ½ years and the first accused is employed in Tamil Nadu Special Police and from the date of marriage, she is subjected to harassment and cruelty at the hands of her husband as well as in-laws and of all them had demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/by way of dowry.

¶18

When these petitions came up for hearing on 13.08.2013, this Court had referred the matter for mediation and the parties had appeared for mediation and the mediation centre has sent the failure report. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defacto complainant want to live with her husband, the first accused herein in a

¶20

separate residence, leaving his parents in lurch. Since it was unreasonable, the petitioner had not acceded to the said demand and consequential of this, a false criminal complaint has been lodged against him and his family members.

¶21

Learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) would submit that the investigation is pending.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(crl. Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, and on executing a personal 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner/A1 shall report before the respondent police daily at 5.30 p.m. for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required. The other petitioners/A2 to A4 shall report before the respondent police daily at 5.30 p.m. for a period of one week and thereafter, as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

¶24

The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶25

/ TRUE COPY /

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶27

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶28

Madurai - 625 023.

¶29

¶30

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI.

¶31

2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶32

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPARANKUNDRAM, MADURAI. MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶33

4 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶34

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶35

+1. CC to M/S.HALLMARK ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.61092.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ msm 10.12.2013 p2-6c

¶37

IN CRL OP(MD)Nos.13356 & 13344 of 2013

Gnanam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gnanam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duraipandi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

J.Yakya Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police

Vs

Paulraj @ Paulpandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Lmithias Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police