The court granted anticipatory bail to the first four accused petitioners in a dowry harassment case. Bail was denied to the fifth petitioner as he was not an accused in the underlying complaint. Strict conditions regarding appearance were imposed.
Petitioners 1 to 4 released on bail with conditions; Petitioner 5 petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRL OP(MD) No.11725 of 2015
1 MUTHAARU 2 MUPPUDAATHY (*)3 RAMESH @ MARIAPPAN 4 SUMATHY 5 MAARISATHYA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
RANK NOT KNOWN
STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AALANGULAM, TIRUNELVELI CR.NO.9 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
VELLAIKANI ..INTERVENOR
For Petitioners : M/S.J.ARUL PRAKASH Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.D.VENKATESH, Advocate
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A, (*)354(A), 294(b), 406 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and Section 4 DP Act, in Crime No.9 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2.According to the de-facto complainant, the marriage between the de-facto complainant and the first accused had taken place on 03.06.2013 and at the time of marriage, she was provided with 26 sovereign of gold jewels and Rs.2,25,000/- as cash and 13grms of gold chain to the first petitioner and after the marriage, the accused have forced the de-facto complainant to resign her job from the Postal Department and thereafter, all the accused joined together and demanded Rs.1 lakh as additional dowry and also harassed her.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and it is further submitted that due to matrimonial dispute, a false complaint was given against the accused.
4.It is further submitted that the first accused has filed H.M.O.P.No.204 of 2014 before the Principal Sub-Court, Tenkasi for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ divorce and after receiving notice in that petition, the de-facto complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners with an ulterior motive.
5.The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners contending that as per the order of this Court, the de-facto complainant has appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but, the first accused has refused to take her to the matrimonial home and the de-facto complainant filed an application in H.M.O.P.No.9 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending before the Principal Sub-Court, Ambasamuthiram.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the fifth accused is not arrayed as an accused in this case in Crime No.9 of 2015. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed in respect of the fifth petitioner.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners No.1 to 4 with certain conditions.
(*)AMENDED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 23/11/2015 AND MADE IN MP(MD)NO.2/2015 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.11725/2015 BY VMVJ
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TENKASI. 2 -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AALANGULAM, TIRUNELVELI
+1CC TO MR.D.VENKATESH, Advocate Sr.No.60734
Akm/16.10.2015 /2p-7c/
TE/SK/SKN/SARII/3/12/2015 ORDER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the first four petitioners accused of dowry harassment and other offences.
Whether the fifth petitioner, not arrayed as an accused in the pending complaint, should be granted anticipatory bail.
What conditions to impose on the grant of anticipatory bail, including daily appearance and restitution of conjugal rights applications.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Muthaaru
Muppudaathy
Ramesh @ Mariappan
Sumathy
Maarisathya
Vellaii
K. Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
