Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to petitioners accused of crimes under IPC Sections 294, 498A, 406, and 506 in a dowry harassment case. Released on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 subject to standard conditions.
Petitioners granted anticipatory bail; ordered to execute personal bond for Rs. 10,000.
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.17082 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 11.12.2023
PRESENT
The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL OP(MD)No.17082 of 2023
1.S.Eugine Prasath @ Yugin Prasath 2.Glory ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 2
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.8 of 2023) ...Respondent/Complainant
2.Andas Suriya ... 2nd Respondent
(R2 is suo motu impleaded as per order of the Court dated 22.09.2023 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17082 of 2023)
For Petitioners : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian,Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C
PRAYER :-
For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.8 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CRL OP(MD)No.17082 of 2023
ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 406, 506(i) IPC in Crime No.8 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the husband and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. After marriage, the petitioners and other family members harassed the defacto complainant by demanding additional dowry. Hence the case.
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.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the investigation in this case is not yet completed.
5.Considering the nature of allegations levelled as against the petitioners and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
CRL OP(MD)No.17082 of 2023
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 offence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners are having permanent residence at Thanjavur 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.
6.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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District on condition that the petitioners shall execute a own https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
CRL OP(MD)No.17082 of 2023
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 :
[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 Pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioners shall report before the trial Court on summons.
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[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]. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/6
CRL OP(MD)No.17082 of 2023
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under
Section 229A IPC.
sd/11/12/2023 / TRUE COPY /
/12/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
GNS
TO
5/6
CRL OP(MD)No.17082 of 2023
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17082 of 2023 Date :11/12/2023
PKP/DD/SAR- /20.12.2023/ 6P/ 7C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC in a matrimonial case involving dowry and cruelty allegations?
Whether the accused, having roots in the community and facing non-heinous charges, can be released on personal bond?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of PunjabReferred¶27
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab 1980 AIR 1632 · Who else cites this
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶27
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009)4 SCC 437 · Who else cites this
Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.Referred¶27
Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. (1994)4 SCC 260 · Who else cites this
Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of BiharExplained¶27
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360 · Who else cites this
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaExplained¶36
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Eugine Prasath @ Yugin Prasath
Glory
The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Devakottai, Sivagangai District
Andas Suriya
V.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
