Partly allowed

Gunakaran v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Mar 2015CRL OP(MD)/15948/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of the first petitioner, Gunakaran, due to serious allegations of unnatural sex. Bail was granted to the other three petitioners, who are his relatives, subject to bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed against first petitioner; Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 2, 3, and 4 on revocation of order during investigation or trial before the Mahila Court.

Gunakaran Vs the Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.15948 of 2014

¶6

1 GUNAKARAN

¶7

2 DHANALAKSHMI 3 THILAGA @ RAJA THILAGAVATHI

¶8

4 SUGANAYA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 - 4

¶9

Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPPARANGUNDRAM, MADURAI DIST, CR.NO.98/2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.N.SATHISH BABU Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act in Crime No.98 of 2014, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent . The respondent police is present.

¶16

3.Initially the matter was referred to Mediation Centre and failure reported dated 11.03.2015 has been received.

¶17

It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant and Gunakaran the first petitioner were married on 07.09.2001 and they have no issues. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that her husband is subjecting her to unnatural sex. The allegation against the first petitioner is very serious and hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. This petition against the first petitioner is dismissed.

¶18

As regards the petitioners 2, 3 and 4, since they are relatives of the first petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are ordered to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Mahila Court, (Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai, on

¶20

condition that each of the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶21

[a] the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶22

[b] the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶23

[c] the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶24

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) as to whether the petitioner is complying with the order or not.

sd/-

26/03/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶29

Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶30

1.THE MAHILA COURT (JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE LEVEL), MADURAI.

¶31

2.DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶32

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶33

ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPPARANGUNDRAM, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶34

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶35

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

¶38

CRL OP(MD) No.15948 of 2014 Date :26/03/2015 rg.31.03.2015 2p.5c.

¶39

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

Gunakaran v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunakaran 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Muniasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthilkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Pandi Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Hakkim Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Ganapathi Subramanian Vs the Inspector of Police