Accused in a dowry harassment case sought anticipatory bail after earlier dismissals. They returned only 22.5 of 129 sovereigns of jewels, allegedly conditioned on mutual consent divorce. Finding remaining jewels recoverable only by search and custodial interrogation, the court refused bail.
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)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.9322, 9324, 9326 of 2024
Pandiyarajan :Petitioner/1st Accused in Crl.OP(MD).12028/2024 A.Ranjitham :Petitioner/2nd Accused in Crl.OP(MD).13918/2024 A.Karthick :Petitioner/3rd Accused in Crl.OP(MD).13920/2024
Vs.
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, South Gate, Madurai. Crime No.9 of 2024 : Respondents in all Crl.OPs
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
COMMON PRAYER:
Petitions filed under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the case in Crime No.9 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioners : Mr.Porkodi Karnan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Intervenor : Mr.V.Thirumal [In all Ops]
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners before this Court are the accused in Crime No.9 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police, for the offence punishable u/s.498(A), 406, 323, 506(1), 109 IPC. The petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.12028 of 2024 is the first accused; the petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.13918 of 2024 is the second accused; and the petitioner in Crl.OP(MD)No.13920 of 2024 is the third accused. They are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police and have filed these petitions seeking anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the defacto complainant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis with the first accused was solemnized on 08.06.2016 and they are having two
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024 children, out of the wedlock. At the time of marriage, 129 sovereigns of jewels were given as dowry and these jewels were retained by the accused. It is her further case that the first accused had illegal intimacy with other women and when it was questioned by her, the accused have tortured her and not permitted her to attend even her own brother's betrothal. According to her, she was assaulted twice in the month of May, 2023 and in the month of July, 2023, sustained injuries and admitted in the Hospital.
3.The earlier applications filed by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail were dismissed by this Court, considering the objections of the respondent Police and the defacto complainant that the jewels of the defacto complainant are yet to be recovered. For the accused nos.1 & 2, these are the second petitions and for the accused no.3, this is the third petition. They have filed these petitions stating that they are innocents, they have not committed any offence and they are also ready to cooperate for the investigation.
4.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused is the husband; the second accused is the mother of the first accused / mother-in-law of the defacto complainant; and the third accused is the brother of the first accused / brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant and her husband https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis were living separately from the date of their marriage and due to some
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
misunderstanding, both of them are now living separately. The husband has filed a divorce application before the Family Court, Madurai, in HMOP.No.343 of 2024 and the same is pending. Since the husband has filed the divorce application, the defacto complainant has foisted this false complaint as against the petitioners.
5.Learned Counsel for the intervenor / defacto complainant submitted that at the time of marriage, the accused nos.2 & 3 were living along with the first accused in the house bearing Door No.43, , Nethaji Nagar, Sampattipuram, Madurai. During the marriage, 102 sovereigns of gold jewels and 5 sovereigns of bracelet were given as dowry. Apart from that, Rs.4 Lakh worth of house hold articles were also given. During thala deepavali, 5 sovereigns of chain was given to the first accused and during the baby shower function, 3.5 sovereigns of bangles were given by her parents. She gave birth to a girl child in the year 2017 and at that time, 4 sovereigns of chain and 1 sovereign of bangle were given. For the second boy child, 3 sovereigns of chain were given in the year 2019. All together, according to the defacto complainant, 129 sovereigns of jewels have been given by her parents to the accused in the name of dowry.
6.He further submitted that while so, the first accused had illegal intimacy with his colleague and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant. Therefore, on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21.05.2023, the first accused kicked the defacto complainant on her abdomen and she
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
suffered bleeding and admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. On the intimation given by the Hospital, the SS Colony Police came and enquired. A complaint was also received by them. During the enquiry, the Police have advised the accused to open a separate locker, for which, the accused had also agreed. However, they failed to open the locker. Again, there was another incident on 29.07.2023 and she was admitted in the Hospital and another complaint was lodged before the SS Colony Police on 30.07.2023. The SS Colony Police conducted an enquiry and advised the first accused to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- per month for the school fee of the children. However, the harassment was increased and a complaint was lodged before the Commissioner of Police on 16.08.2023. In this circumstances, on 01.02.2024, the defacto complainant was not permitted to attend the betrothal of her own brother. The accused are still retaining the jewels of the defacto complainant, around 129 sovereigns.
7.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Police submitted that the jewels are with the accused and the same is yet to be recovered.
8.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.
9.The petitioners have renewed these applications with an undertaking that they are prepared to return the jewels, which are available with them. The petitioners'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Counsel has taken a specific stand that 22.5 sovereigns alone are with them and they
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
are prepared to return the same to the defacto complainant. They are also prepared to return the house hold articles.
10.Considering this submission made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court has granted interim protection to the petitioners enabling them to solve the issue with the defacto complainant and to return the jewels. It appears that accordingly, the petitioners / accused have handed over 22.5 sovereigns of jewels [10 sovereigns Necklace and 12.5 sovereigns Aaram Chain]. The defacto complainant, who was present before this Court, insisted that the remaining jewels are also with the petitioners, but the same was denied by the petitioners. This Court is not in a position to find out the truth on the submissions made by either side.
11.The defacto complainant has stated that during the first occurrence on 23.05.2023, when she was admitted in the Hospital, a complaint was received from her by the SS Colony Police, which was treated as a petition enquiry. During the course of that enquiry, the petitioners / accused have admitted the possession of 129 sovereigns of jewels and they have also agreed to place all these jewels in a locker and also gave an undertaking to that effect. However, they have not opened the locker till date. She also stated that even in this complaint, before the first Officer who enquired into the matter, the accused had admitted the possession of the jewels, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis however, they made a condition that the jewels would be returned in the presence of
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
the defacto complainant's parents and after signing the application for divorce on mutual consent. A date was fixed for this enquiry and the parents of the defacto complainant, who are living at Mumbai, have also came to the respondent Police Station for the purpose of receiving the jewel. However, the petitioners have not turned up.
12.Considering this submission of the defacto complainant, this Court directed the appearance of the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police, who enquired into the matter at the initial stage. Accordingly, Ms.M.Maadathy, Sub-Inspector of Police, is present before this Court and she confirmed the submission of the defacto complainant. She further submitted that the jewels are with the accused only and that the accused have made some conditions for returning the same.
13.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
14.The earlier applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed on the ground the jewels, around 129 sovereigns, are yet to be recovered from the petitioners / accused. The petitioners, in the present applications, have not stated anything about the possession of this 22.5 sovereigns of jewels by them, which were returned on 27.08.2024. They have come forward to return this 22.5 sovereigns of jewel, only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis when this Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to them. The first accused /
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024 husband has also filed a divorce application on 06.03.2024. Even in this divorce application, the first accused has not stated about the possession of this 22.5 sovereigns of jewels of the defacto complainant, with him.
15.The submission of the Sub-Inspector of Police discloses that the accused, at the time of initial enquiry in this crime number, have admitted the possession of this 129 sovereigns of jewels with them and they have put some conditions that it would be returned only if the defacto complainant signs in the mutual consent divorce application. The defacto complainant claims that she is having two children and as such, she is not inclined to sign in the mutual consent divorce application and therefore, it appears that the petitioners / accused are taking a different stand.
16.This conduct of the petitioners in returning 22.5 sovereigns of jewels also creates a doubt that the petitioners might be having the remaining jewels also. The jewels are around 129 sovereigns, out of which, 22.5 sovereigns have now been returned to the defacto complainant. The remaining jewels are yet to be recovered.
17.Considering the conduct of the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the remaining jewels could be recovered only by conducting a search in all the petitioners' premises and also by custodial interrogation. Therefore, this Court is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis inclined to entertain these anticipatory bail applications.
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
Accordingly, these criminal original petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
sd/04/09/2024
/ TRUE COPY /
/ 09 /2024
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
GK
TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION SOUTH GATE, MADURAI
+1 CC to M/s.M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS, Advocate ( SR-10839[I] dated 04/09/2024 )
+1 CC to M/s.S.ANANDHA RAJA GOPAL, Advocate ( SR-10871[I] dated 04/09/2024 )
+1 CC to M/s.M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS, Advocate ( SR-10840[I] dated 04/09/2024 )
+1 CC to M/s.M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS, Advocate ( SR-10841[I] dated 04/09/2024 )
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024
ORDER IN Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12028, 13918, 13920 of 2024 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.9322, 9324, 9326 of 2024 Date :04/09/2024
PSP/ SG /SAR /25.09.2024/ 10P/ 7C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused have allegedly not returned dowry jewels and custodial interrogation is needed for recovery.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pandiyarajan
A.Ranjitham
A.Karthick
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, South Gate, Madurai
B.Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
