Allowed

Murugappan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Oct 2017CRL OP(MD)/13840/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons facing charges of dowry harassment, criminal intimidation, and insult to modesty. The petitioners were directed to report daily to the investigating officer and surrender within 15 days if arrested. A bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties was required, with automatic cancellation upon breach of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered released on bail in event of arrest or appearance within 15 days, bound to report daily for three weeks, and to execute a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Murugappan Vs the Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Twelfth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.13840 and 13843 of 2017

¶6

MURUGAPPAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRL OP(MD) 13480 of 2017 VINOTH KUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.5 IN CRL OP(MD) 13483 of 2017

¶7

Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 08/2017. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE RESPONDENTS

¶8

For Petitioners : M/S.N.ANANDAKUMAR Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONS

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN,Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETITIONS

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

Since the petitioners in these petitions are the accused persons in the same crime number, both petitions are taken up together and disposed of by way of common order.

¶13

The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 5, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 506(ii) and 498(A) I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.8 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

3.The case of the prosecution is that the A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant and A5 is the brother-in-law of the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant. The allegation made against the petitioners that they harassed the defacto complainant and demanded more dowry.

¶15

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the co-accused were already enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court, by order dated 17.07.2017, made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9015 of 2017 and he prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

¶16

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is pending and he also confirmed that the co-accused were already enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶17

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, they 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, Karaikudi, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶18

(i) the petitioners shall report before the investigation officer, daily between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., for a period of three weeks;

¶19

(ii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶20

(iii) the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the investigation officer;

¶21

(iv) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail;

¶22

(iv) 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 and the anticipatory bail granted stands cancelled automatically.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

12/10/2017

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,KARAIKUDI. 2 -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI.

¶29

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI. SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT,

¶30

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶31

+2. CC to M/S.N.ANANDAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.32722,32723

¶32

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13840 and 13843 of 2017 Date :12/10/2017 MV:RR-BS:SAR3:25/10/2017/2P/7C

¶33

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

Murugappan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugappan 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

Idhyaraja Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvam Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Ayihsa Benasir Vs Abdul Wahab

M. Jayamariammal Vs the Inspector of Police

Naina Mohamed Vs the Sub Inspector of Police