Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to in-laws falsely accused under IPC sections 294, 498A, and 506 in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry harassment, subject to bond execution and appearance conditions.
Released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties and appearing for interrogation as required.
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 )
Thursday, the Fifteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM
CRL OP(MD) No.14706 of 2015
1 S.ARUNACHALAM
2 VASANTHA@VALLI 3 A.S.A.CHAKRAVARTHY 4 C.GOMATHI SATHIYA 5 SUBBU @ KAVITHA ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO. 3 TO 7
Vs
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 29 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate
For Respondent : MS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
For Intervenor : Mr.K.A.RAMAKRISHNAN, Advocate
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners, who are arrayed as A3 to A7, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 498-A and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.29 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2.According to the de-facto complainant, the first accused even before marrying her, had intimacy with the second accused and suppressing the relationship, married her on 06.02.2012 and when it was questioned by the de-facto complainant, she was attacked by the first accused and it is further alleged that at the instigation of A2 to A7, the first accused harassed the de-facto complainant.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and they are nothing to do with the relationship between A1 and A2. It is further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and the de-facto complainant has filed H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2015 before the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi against the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused for divorce.
4.The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that at the instigation of A3 to A7, the first accused assaulted the de-facto complainant and also demanded dowry from her.
5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.
15/10/2015
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
+1. CC to M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate SR.No.61408 +1cc to Mr.K.A.RAMAKRISHNAN, Advocate SR.No.61799
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.14706 of 2015 Date :15/10/2015
NS/SKS-RR/SAR II/26.10.2015 : 2P/7C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the in-laws falsely implicated in a matrimonial offence.
Whether the petitioners are innocent and victims of false implication in the case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.ARUNACHALAM
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI
K.KALYANASUNDARAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
