The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed criminal original petitions for anticipatory bail. The court observed that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover jewels taken by the petitioners and, considering their conduct, refused the relief.
The petitioners were not granted anticipatory 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.O.P.(MD)No.5733 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 25/06/2024
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI
CRL OP(MD). Nos.5733 and 5734 of 2024
Vs
The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, South Gate, Madurai. Crime No.9/2024. ... Respondent/Complainant in both petitions Raveena ... Petitioner/Intervener in Crl.MP(MD).4569 & 4570/2024
In both petitions:
For Petitioners : Mr.S. Bageerathan,
Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthikumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.V.Thirumal, Advocate
1/3
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5733 of 2024
PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C
COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 9 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.
COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioners, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, in connection with a case in Crime No.9 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 506(1) and 109 of IPC, have filed these petitions seeking anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to matrimonial dispute, the accused harassed the defacto complainant and also demanded additional dowry from her. Hence the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submits that no previous case is pending against the petitioners.
5.The learned Counsel for the intervenor has raised serious objections and submits that the petitioners had taken away the jewels of the defacto complainant and not returned the same to her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6.Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the intervenor,
2/3
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5733 of 2024
this Court is of the opinion that the jewels of the defacto complainant can be recovered only by way of custodial interrogation.
7.Considering the conduct of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant
any relief to the petitioners. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
sd/25/06/2024
/ TRUE COPY /
/07/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SJI TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SOUTH GATE, MADURAI.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+2. CC to Mr.V.THIRUMAL, Advocate SR.Nos.7000 & 7001 (I) DT.26/06/2024
+2. CC to Mr.J.I.NITHIN KAANTH, Advocate SR.Nos.29774 (F) DT.26/06/2024
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD). Nos.5733 and 5734 of 2024 Date :25/06/2024
SA/VR/SAR. /02.07.2024/3P/7C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners facing criminal charges related to matrimonial dispute and dowry harassment.
Whether the taking away of the defacto complainant's jewels and the need for custodial interrogation warrant rejection of bail application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A Ranjitham and others
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
