Dismissed

Sureshkumar.M v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Dec 2022CRL OP(MD)/21431/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by the husband and mother-in-law in a case involving dowry, harassment, and seduction charges. The court refused to entertain the plea as it had been previously dismissed on similar grounds due to petitioner conduct with no change in circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of Criminal Original Petition No.21431 of 2022 for anticipatory bail.

Sureshkumar.M Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.21431 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.12.2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI CRL OP(MD). No.21431 of 2022

¶3

M.Suresh Kumar 2. Guruvammal ...Petitioners/Accused 1 & 2

¶4

¶5

The State, Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli Junction, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.8 of 2021). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: Mr.M.Mohanasundaram Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Vaikkam Karunanidhi Government Advocate

¶6

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

¶7

PRAYER :-

¶8

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.8 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent police.

¶9

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶10

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.8 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶11

The first petitioner is the husband and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was performed on 17.01.2021. At the time of marriage, the defacto complainant's parents gifted 34 sovereigns jewels and household articles as dowry. On compulsion of her husband, the defacto complainant mortgaged the jewels and gave a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- to him. Even then, the defacto complainant was harassed by the petitioners demanding more dowry. Hence, the complaint.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

1/2

¶14

CRL OP(MD). No.21431 of 2022

¶15

This is the third anticipatory bail petition. The earlier anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed by this Court on 20.09.2021 and 08.12.2022 considering the conduct of the petitioners.

¶16

Since there is no change in circumstances of the case, after the dismissal of the earlier anticipatory bail petitions, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/08/12/2022 / TRUE COPY /

¶17

08/12/2022

¶18

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

¶19

Madurai - 625 023.

¶20

¶21

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI JUNCTION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.21431 of 2022 Date :08/12/2022 ogy USK/SSS/SAR- /08.12.2022/2P/3C

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/2

Sureshkumar.M v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sureshkumar.M v. The Sub 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

Sri Durga Fancy Store Vs R.Kaverikrishnan

M.Parvathy Vs O.Pitchai

Rajagopal, Vs K.Subramaniyan

S.Sathaiyapillai Vs K.Kesavan

Pathirakali Muthu Vs Indira Selvi Dayana

Srinivason Samppath@Sakthi Ganesh Vs Annapoorani@Nandhini