Partly allowed

M.Karthik, M/28 Years v. State Represented by

Madras HC18 Apr 2017CRL OP/7157/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Cr.P.C.439 for offences under IPC498(A) and 304(B), the Court granted bail to the mother-in-law and sister-in-law pending the RDO report but dismissed the bail application of the husband.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners 2 and 3 (Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, daily reporting for two weeks); petition dismissed as to petitioner 1 (husband).

M.Karthik, M/28 Years Vs State Represented by — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S. BASKARAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.7157 of 2017

¶6

1 M.KARTHIK [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 M.KASTHURI 3 U.CHITRA @ JAYA CHITRA

¶7

STATE REPRESENTED BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B7, VELLAVEDU POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. CR.NO.272 OF 2017.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.T.ARUL Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : MR. R.SEKAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

Petitioners who are arrayed as A-1, A-2 and A-3, were arrested on 14.03.2017 in Crime No.272 of 2017 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 174(iii) of Cr.P.C. @ 498(A) r/w 304(B) of IPC, on the file of respondent police, seek bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and other accused have harassed the deceased and also ill treated her by demanding dowry. The deceased committed suicide. Hence, a case has been registered.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1^st petitioner is the husband and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law and third petitioner is the sister-in-law of the deceased and absolutely a false case had been foisted against them and they are in custody for more than a month. Hence, he seeks to enlarge them on bail.

¶15

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there are totally 9 accused in this case and these petitioners are A-1 to A-3 and RDO reported is awaited.

¶16

Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody from 14.03.2017, investigation of the matter has also been completed and only RDO report is awaited in this case. In such circumstances, this court is of the view that there is no need of further incarceration of the petitioners 2 and 3 since they were in-laws and hence, deems it fit to enlarge the petitioners 2 & 3 on bail on the following conditions. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners 2 & 3 shall be released on bail, on executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, and shall report before the respondent police daily at 10 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. In so far as the first petitioner/husband is concerned, this petition is dismissed.

¶17

-sd/-

¶18

18/04/2017

¶19

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶22

¶23

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, POONAMALLEE.

¶24

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION]

¶25

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶26

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B7, VELLAVEDU POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶27

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

¶28

+1CC to M/S.T.ARUL Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.6994

¶29

CRL OP.7157/2017

¶30

Date :18/04/2017 MK:20/04/2017

M.Karthik, M/28 Years v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Karthik, M/28 Years v. State Represented by

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

D.R.K.Kalyanram, Aged 40 Years Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Thirumalai Vasan, Aged 35 Yrs, Vs the State Rep. by Its

Mani, S/O.Challappa Reddy, Vs the Inspector of Police

Pachiyappan, 61 Yrs, Vs Inspector of Police

R.Saravanakumar, Male Vs the Commissione of Police

D.Murugavel, (M/a 45 Yrs) Vs State Rep by