The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail. The court observed that despite mediation orders, the petitioner was unwilling to settle with the wife and did not cooperate with the mediator, leading to the dismissal of the plea.
The petition for anticipatory bail was refused and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL OP(MD). No.6949 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/09/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI CRL OP(MD). No.6949 of 2021 Prabhakaran, ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Madurai District Cr.No. 35 of 2018. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s. Arputharaj.A, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Pandiyarajan Advocate.
PRAYER :-
For anticipatory bail in Crime No.35 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner/A1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 489(A), 406, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC in Crime No.35 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant. The marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant on 20.01.2016. After the marriage, they went to Singapore on 05.02.2016. As her visa was to expire on 02.04.2016, she came to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the petitioner's parents treated her in cruel manner and tortured her. Therefore, the petitioner's parents were arrested and they were released on bail. The petitioner is still working in Singapore. The de-facto complainant is having all the jewels and Rs.6,00,000/- deposited in the joint account in the name of the petitioner and the de-facto complainant.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
1/2
CRL OP(MD). No.6949 of 2021
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for the respondent strongly opposed this petition on the ground that investigation is yet to be completed.
5.It is seen from the records that the matter has been referred for mediation by order dated 19.05.2021. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 12.08.2021, this Court referred the matter once again to the mediation and appointed one Mr.Vanchinathan as a mediator. It appears that the petitioner is not willing to settle the issue with the de-facto complainant, having obtained interim orders from this Court and also he did not co-operate with the mediator to solve the issue amicably.
6.Considering the conduct of this petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
sd/17/09/2021 / TRUE COPY /
/ /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. SJI
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.
TO
Date :17/09/2021
RD/JC/SAR-I(23.09.2021) 2P 3C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is accused of offences under Sections 489(A), 406, 294(b) and 506(1) of IPC.
Prabhakaran
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam
B. PUGALENDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
