Allowed

Vignesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Dec 2023CRL OP(MD)/16866/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of dowry-related offences under sections 498A, 506 IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court relied on Supreme Court principles regarding pre-trial detention and community roots, directing release on a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted by release on own bond for Rs.10,000 with conditions to report to court and not tamper with evidence or abscond.

Vignesh Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.16866 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Date : 07.12.2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

CRL OP(MD)No.16866 of 2023

¶7

1.Vignesh

¶8

2.Rajeshwari

¶9

3.Chitra Endra Renukadevi ... Petitioners / Accused No.1,3 & 4

¶10

¶11

The Inspector of Police, AWPS Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. (In Crime No.18 of 2023) ... Respondent / Complainant

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Srikanth, Advocate For Respondent : M/s.M.Aasha, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER :-

¶15

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.18 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

CRL OP(MD)No.16866 of 2023

¶20

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.18 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

¶21

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. At the time of marriage, the defacto complainant's parents had given 135 sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles, worth about Rs.5 Lakhs as sridhana. Thereafter, the petitioners harassed the defacto complainant by demanding additional dowry. Hence the case.

¶22

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶23

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the investigation is still pending.

¶24

5.Considering the nature of allegations levelled as against the petitioners and taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/5

¶26

CRL OP(MD)No.16866 of 2023

¶27

offence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners are having permanent residence at Ramanthapuram District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond.

¶28

7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram on condition that the petitioners shall execute a own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that :

¶29

[a] the petitioners shall affix his photograph and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/5

¶31

CRL OP(MD)No.16866 of 2023

¶32

Pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶33

[b] the petitioners shall report before the trial Court on summons.

¶34

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶35

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶36

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial

¶37

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].

¶38

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/07/12/2023

/ TRUE COPY /

/12/2023

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

¶43

GNS