Allowed

K. Muniyasamy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Mar 2015CRL OP(MD)/21905/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal society court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused under IPC Sections 417, 498A, and 506. The court relied on Arnesh Kumar to hold that allegations of torture by the victim suggest ill-founding cases. Bail was granted with conditions including executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or appearance, conditioned upon executing a bond with sureties and adhering to investigation conditions.

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

¶1

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

¶2

Friday, the Twenty Seventh day of March Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.21905 of 2014

¶6

1 K. MUNIYASAMY

¶7

2 M. MANIMEGALAI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2&3

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARUPPUKOTTAI ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

¶11

CRIME NO.33/2014 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.R.SURESHKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 498(A), 506(i) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.33 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

Initially the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Bench and failure report dated 10.02.2015 has been received.

¶17

It is the case of the prosecution that Puzhiraja (A-1) was in love with the defacto complainant and they got married on 19.05.2014 in a temple, without the knowledge of the in parents. A- 1 and the defacto complainant belong to different religions. After the marriage, there appears to have been matrimonial discord between A-1 and the defacto complainant and they got estranged. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, alleging cruelty, this case came to be registered and A-1 was arrested by the police https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 25.11.2014 and released on bail on 01.12.2014. These petitioners are the parents of A-1 and the allegations against them are not very

¶18

serious. Therefore, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) Scale 250 , this Court is inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners herein.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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:

¶20

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

¶21

[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶22

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶23

[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].

sd/-

27/03/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶28

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶29

¶30

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARUPPUKOTTAI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR

¶31

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶32

ARUPPUKOTTAI ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,

¶33

VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

¶34

4.THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶35

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.R.SURESHKUMAR Advocate SR.No.15367 RL/6 C- 30/3/2015

¶36

ORDER

¶37

¶38

CRL OP(MD) No.21905 of 2014 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :27/03/2015

K. Muniyasamy v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Muniyasamy 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

Gunakaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Pandi Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Hakkim Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Vairamuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Suresh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Venkatapandian Vs the Sub Inspector of Police