Allowed

Muthaiah v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Feb 2014CRL OP(MD)/1177/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused persons filed petitions for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with allegations of dowry death, cruelty, cheating, and cruelty by dishonoring a woman. The court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including execution of bonds and periodic appearance before police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on execution of bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions of appearing before police and Magistrate.

Muthaiah Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Twelfth day of February Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL OP(MD) Nos.1177 and 729 of 2014

¶5

¶6

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BATLAGUNDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 1 OF 2014. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH PETITIONS

¶7

For Petitioner : M/S.R.MANOHARAN Advocate FOR BOTH PETITIONS

¶8

For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) FOR BOTH PETITIONS

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶11

There are totally eight accused. The petitioners/accused in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.1177 of 2014 are arrayed as A.2 and A.3 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.729 of 2014 are arrayed as A.4 and A.5 respectively apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,376,506(ii),306 IPC in Crime No.1 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail. The offences are said to have been committed on 02.01.2014.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that the son of the petitioners, namely, one Ramki, had a love affair with a victim girl, who was aged about 19 years and under the pretext of marrying her, he had physical relationship with the said girl. When the said girl insisted to marry her, Ramki was evasive in his response which led to self-immolation of the victim girl and subsequently, she died also.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would submit that the except the fact that the petitioners in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.1177 of 2014 are the parents of the first accused and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.729 of 2014 are brother-in-law and sister-

¶14

in-law of the first accused, they have nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence. In any event, the petitioners are ready to extend their full co-operation to the respondent police and to help the respondent police to nab the first accused.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that A.8 was arrested and enlarged on bail and the investigation is pending.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai, and on each of them 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that except the accused Nos.3 and 5, the other petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

¶18

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.

¶19

¶20

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,NILAKKOTTAI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BATLAGUNDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶21

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.R.MANOHARAN Advocate SR.No.9374

¶22

ORDER

¶23

CRL OP(MD) Nos.1177 and 729 of 2014 Date :12/02/2014 gdr 14.02.14 2p/6C

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Muthaiah v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthaiah v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Panneerselvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Dhanapaul Vs the Inspector of Police

Sankar Vs the Inspector of Police

Malarmani Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Muthu Vs the Insepctor of Police