Allowed

M.Kumaraswami v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Apr 2015CRL OP(MD)/19086/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for anticipatory bail regarding offences under dowry harassment and public provocation to a breach of the peace, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to executing a bond and complying with police directions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest upon executing a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties each for like sums.

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

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶4

CRL OP(MD) No.19086 of 2014

¶5

1 M.KUMARASWAMI 2 K.UMA DEVI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.2 & 3 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, JEEYAPURAM, TRICHY DISTRICT. CR. NO. 14/2014. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶6

For Petitioner : M/S.N.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN Advocate

¶7

For Respondent : K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶10

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A) and 506(i) I.P.C r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act in Crime No.14 of 2014 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶11

The case of the prosecution is that the accused have demanded dowry and also threatened the defacto complainant.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire occurrence is said to have been taken place in Japan and the petitioners who are parents-in-law of the defacto complainant are no way involved in this case. It is further submitted that the entire articles belonging to the defacto complainant were returned in the presence of the witnesses on 6.1.2015 and the defacto complainant has also filed a petition in H.M.O.P..No. 498 of 2014 before the Principal Sub Court, Trichirappalli and an exparte order of divorce was granted.

¶13

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶14

5 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy, 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 to the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the petitioners 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.

¶15

6. 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. sd/07/04/2015

¶16

/ TRUE COPY /

¶17

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶18

¶19

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III,TRICHY.

¶20

2.DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY.

¶21

3.THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶22

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, JEEYAPURAM, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶23

+1. CC to M/S.N.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN Advocate SR.No.17405

¶24

CRL OP(MD) No.19086 of 2014

¶25

RG.08.04.2015 2P.6C.

¶26

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

M.Kumaraswami v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kumaraswami 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

C. Andrews Vasudevan Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Pandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Sannasi Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Revathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Periyakaruppu Vs Deputy Superintendent of

P.Vallinayagam Vs Inspector of Police