Madras High Court
C.Ramesh Kannan vs The State Rep. By on 2 September, 2022
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Dated: 02/09/2022
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)Nos.10101 and 10102 of 2022
C.Ramesh Kannan :Petitioner in
Crl.OP(MD)No.10101 of 2022/A1
1.Vasuki
2.Ramya
3.Saranya
4.Suresh
5.Kannagi :Petitioners in
Crl.OP(MD)No.10102 of 2022/A2 to A6
Vs.
The State rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
(In Crime No.05 of 2022) : Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For Intervener : Mr.A.Arputharaj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BIAL under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER:-
C-29AB & 33AB.For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.05
of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.
COMMON ORDER :The Court made the following order:-
The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A6 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 506(i), 494 and 498(A) IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Ndu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 1998, in Crime No.05 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the wife of A1. She lodged a complaint stating that the marriage between herself and A1 was performed, on 15/11/2019 as per the customary religions rites. At the time of marriage, she was provided with sufficient jewels, seerdhana, house-hold articles, etc. Right from the marriage, the above said jewels and other seerdhana articles are in the house of A1. Right from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 marriage, the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law used to abuse, torture and ill-treat her stating that there was no sufficient dowry given to her. They have also demanded additional sovereigns and she was also forced to take tablets for aborting the child. on 20/01/2020, she was locked in the house without any food and water and she was also harassed. They also criminally intimidated her. Later, she came to know that A1 had illegal intimacy with one lady namely Kannagi-A6. Because of the above said illegal intimacy, a child was also born on 16/06/2020 and that girl was also brought to the matrimonial home and she was not provided with any maintenance and her child is also not properly cared. With the above said allegation, she lodged a complaint.
3.Now seeking anticipatory bail, this petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as A1, A2 to A6.
4.Later, the matter was referred to the mediation and in the mediation process, it could not be settled due to unknown reasons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4
5.Now serious allegation has been made against A1 to the effect that because of some illegal intimacy that he had with another girl, a female child was also born and she was also taken to the house of A1. When such an allegation has been made against A1 and it has been supported by documentary evidence, he is not entitled for the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. This nature of offence is to be thoroughly proceeded subjecting A1 to the custodial interrogation. So, Crl.OP(MD)No.10101 of 2022 is dismissed.
6.In so far as the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD)No.10102 of 2022, who are arrayed as A2 to A5 are concerned, only bald allegation has been made as usual against the in- laws. A2 is the mother-in law and A3 and A4 are the sister-in-laws and A5 is the brother-in-law. In so far as A6 is concerned, she is the second wife of A1.
7.As mentioned above, only bald allegation has been made against them as usual. So, A2 to A6 are entitled for anticipatory bail, considering the limited role that has been allegedly against them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
8.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.OP(MD)No.10102 of 2022 with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners/A2 to A6 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and the petitioners/A2 to A6 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am until further orders. The petitioners/A2 to A6 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. The petitioners/A2 to A6 shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petitions for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
(G I J) 02.09.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 G.ILANGOVAN ,J er Crl.OP(MD)Nos.10101 and 10102 of 2022 02/09/2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis