Madras High Court
Settu vs The State Rep.By on 11 June, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.8498 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.06.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.8498 of 2020
1.Settu, aged 55 years
S/o.Munusamy.
2.Annadurai, Aged 27 years,
S/o.Settu.
3.Raji, aged 25 years,
S/o.Settu.
4.Nehru, aged 23 years,
S/o.Settu,
All are residing at
Chinniyampettai Village,
Thandarampattu Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District. ... petitioners/Accused 1,2,4&5
Vs.
The State Rep.By
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Thanipadi Police Station,
Thanipadai,
Tiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.1206 of 2020 ... Respondent/Complainant
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1 of 8
Crl.O.P.No.8498 of 2020
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,
praying, to enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail and release him from the
custody in Crime No.1206 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For petitioners : Mr.B.Jawahar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.05.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 174(3) Cr.P.C @ to U/s 304(B), 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.1206 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant who is the mother of the victim, marriage between the 2nd petitioner and the daughter of the defacto complainant held, out of the said wedlock there is a male and female child. During the marriage, 20 sovereigns of gold jewel and Rs.50,000/-
cash was given as dowry. The petitioners demanded additional dowry and harassed the deceased. All the accused are living as a joint family. A6 who is the relative of the petitioners is working in Police Department who as abettor http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.8498 of 2020 had been instrumented for the petitioners to commit harasment to her daughter in demand of dowry. Apart from her son-in-law, the other accused have been instigating A2 in demand of dowry and caused physical assault on her daughter. On 16.05.2020, the victim committed suicide. Hence, the complaint came to be registered.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1 st petitioner is the father of A2, A2 is the husband of the deceased and A3 & A4 are the brothers of A2. All the petitioners residing together. As per the complaint received, within two years of marriage the deceased begotton two children which would go to show that there was no hatred or harasment and demand of dowy, the deceased and her husband living happily together and the petitioners are not the reason for the deceased committing the suicide. The petitioner had immediately taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment. In the complaint, the defacto complainant had stated that apart from her son-in-
law, the other persons might have abetted in demand of dowry and only on suspecion the complaint is given.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in this case the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had conducted an enquiry and the http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.8498 of 2020 enquiry report is yet to made available. Further, the death has taken place within two years of the marriage. From the complaint it is seen that all the accused have continuously harassed and caused physical assult on the deceased in demand of dowry. The demand of dowry has been consistant and on one such occasion, even the Thali of the deceased was removed and she was sent to her parent's house in demand of dowry. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.
5.Considering the submissions and materials available on record, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the 3rd and 4th petitioners/A4 & A5. Therefore, this petition is ordered in so far as the 3 rd and 4th petitioners/A4 & A5. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the 1 st and 2nd petitioners/A1 & A2.
Therefore, this petition is dismissed in so far as the 1st and 2nd petitioners/A1 & A2 are concerned.
6.Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioners in the FIR and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 17.05.2020, this Court in inclined to grant bail to the 3 rd and 4th petitioners, subject to the following conditions:
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.8498 of 2020
(a) the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 & A5 are ordered to be released on bail on executing their own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioners have been confined on their release;
(b) the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 & A5 shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of lifting of lockdown and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;
(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;
(d) the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 & A5 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;
(e) the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 & A5 shall not commit any offences of similar nature;
(f) the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 & A5 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(g) the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 & A5 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.8498 of 2020
(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 & A5 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 3 and 4/A4 & A5 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].
(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.
11.06.2020 Internet : Yes / No gbi http://www.judis.nic.in Page 6 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.8498 of 2020 To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.
2. The Superintendent, The Central Prison, Vellore.
3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station, Thanipadai, Tiruvannamalai District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 7 of 8 Crl.O.P.No.8498 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
gbi CRL.O.P.No.8498 of 2020 11.06.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 8 of 8