Allowed

N. Selvendran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Oct 2015CRL OP(MD)/13873/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons in a criminal case involving matrimonial allegations and dowry demands, subject to stringent conditions including daily police appearance and execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was granted to petitioners 1 to 4 on execution of a bond for Rs.10,000/- each with sureties, subject to daily police appearance of the first petitioner and appearance of others as re

N. Selvendran Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Eighth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.13873 of 2015

¶6

1 N. SELVENDRAN

¶7

2 C. NAGARATHINAM, 3 N. SARASWATHI 4 N. RAJESWARI ... PETITIONERS 1 TO 4/ ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs

¶8

THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL , DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.17/2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.R.SRINIVASAN Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : M/S.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 506(i) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. Section 109 and 34 of I.P.C., in Crime No.17 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶13

According to the de-facto complainant, the marriage between the first accused and the de-facto complainant was solemnised on 19.05.2010 and thereafter, all the accused have joined together and harassed the defacto complainant demanding a housing plot.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and it is further submitted that the de-facto complainant is not willing to reside in a joint family and she insisted the first accused to reside separately and due to the same, a false complaint was given against the petitioners.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the direction of this Court, the first petitioner has appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for 5 occasions, the de-facto complainant appeared only on 2 instances and thereafter, she failed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appear before the Mediation Centre.

¶16

Heard the learned Government (Crl.side).

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders and the petitioners 2 to 4 shall appear before the respondent police 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

sd/08/10/2015 / TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶21

¶22

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, DINDIGUL.

¶23

2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL.

¶24

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶25

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL , DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶26

TS/15.10.2015/2P - 5C SK-SKN/SAR -I

¶27

ORDER

¶28

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13873 of 2015 Date :08/10/2015

¶29

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

N. Selvendran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Selvendran 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

K. Anbalagan Vs State Rep by Inspector of

S.K. Sudhakar Vs State Rep by Inspector of

S.V. Kalimuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Saai Vijayakumaravel Vs the Deputy Superintendent

David Packiya Babu Vs State Rep by Inspector of

R. Pravinkumar Vs State Rep by Inspector of