Allowed

Vinitha v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC13 Aug 2020CRL OP(MD)/8388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of abetment to suicide. The court found no specific overt act against them and imposed conditions including execution of a bond and appearance before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Order to be released on bail with a bond of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

Vinitha Vs The Inspector of Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.8388 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Date : 13/08/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.8388 of 2020

¶7

1.Vinitha

¶8

2.Ramalakshmi ... Petitioners/Accused Rank Not Known

¶9

The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai City. Crime No.989 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar,

¶11

Advocate.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER :-

¶15

For Anticipitary Bail in Crime No. 989 of 2020 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused No.Rank Not Known, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 306 of IPC, in Crime No.989 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the father of the deceased. The first petitioner is widow and she is having two children. The petitioner and the deceased were said to have lived together for the past two years. Thereafter, the first petitioner fell in love with another man, who is arrayed as A4. Due to which, there was a wordy quarrel between the first petitioner and the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased came to the house of the defacto complainant and said to have committed suicide by hanging. Hence, the present complaint.

¶19

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

CRL OP(MD). No.8388 of 2020

¶22

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶23

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the first petitioner is widow and she is having two children. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶24

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that The petitioner and the deceased were said to have lived together for the past two years. Thereafter, the first petitioner fell in love with another man, who is arrayed as A4. Due to which, the deceased came to the house of the defacto complainant and said to have committed suicide by hanging.

¶25

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the rival submissions on either side and on perusal of the materials available on records, it is seen that the deceased said to have committed suicide in the defacto complainant's house, due to frustration and there is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioners for abetment, considering the above circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶26

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each 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:

¶27

(a)the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶28

(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶29

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

¶30

(d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation or trial;

¶31

2/3

¶32

CRL OP(MD). No.8388 of 2020

¶33

(e)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]; and;

¶34

(f)if the accused/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶35

sd/-

¶36

13/08/2020

¶37

/ TRUE COPY / /08/2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶38

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶39

¶40

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO VI, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶41

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶42

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, K.PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.

¶43

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

¶44

ORDER

¶45

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8388 of 2020 Date :13/08/2020 VSG TK/JC/SAR.2/17.08.2020/3P/5C

¶46

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

¶47

3/3

Vinitha v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinitha 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

M/S.Indus Towers Limited Vs the Superintendent of Police

Marasamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Iruleswaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Sankar Kumar Vs State Rep. by

Kathiravan Vs the State

C.Murali Vs The Inspector of Police