High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.7551 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 24/04/2025PRESENTThe HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELCRL OP(MD). No.7551 of 20251. Murugan @ M.Murugesan2. M.Pechi, ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4 VsThe State of Tamilnadu,Rep By, its Sub Inspector of Police,A.Mukkulam Police Station,Virudhunagar District.Cr.No.22 of 2025.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Ganesh N., Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhia, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.S.Prabhu, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.7551 of 2025PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 22.04.2025under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying togrant an order of pre-arrest bail.2. The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent-police for thealleged offences punishable under Section 194 of Bharatiya Nagarik SurakshaSanhita, 2023, altered into Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (306 of IndianPenal Code, 1860) and 80(2) of BNS, 2023 (304-B of IPC), in Crime No.22 of 2025 onthe file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2025 the defacto complainant'sdaughter and one Muthupandi got married. The petitioners are maternal uncle andaunty of the said Muthupandi/A1. Since A1's father had died, there was no otherelder in the house of A1. The petitioners helped their family to arrange the marriage.At the time of betrothal, the petitioners, A1, A2 and A5 demanded dowry of 302/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.7551 of 2025sovereigns of gold. While so, at the time of marriage, the defacto complainantprovided 11 sovereigns of gold and a two-wheeler as seethana . Thereafter, thePetitioners and others subjected the defacto complainant's daughter to harassment bydemanding additional dowry. As a result of such harassment, on 02.03.2025, sheallegedly committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. Hence, the case.4. Mr.S.Sankar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that thepetitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as allegedby the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He furthersubmits that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and hail from a respectablefamily. He however submits that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions tobe imposed by this Court. He therefore prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to thepetitioners.5. Per contra, Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi, the learned Government Advocate (CriminalSide) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the petitioners and otherssubjected the daughter of the defacto complainant to harassment by demandingadditional dowry. Therefore, he contends that, if the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, they will cause threat to the defacto complainant and his family. He3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.7551 of 2025further submits that with regard to the suspicious death, the Revenue DivisionalOfficer and Deputy Superintendent of Police have conducted enquiry and filed twodifferent reports. In the Revenue Divisional Officer's report, there was no dowrydemand. In the Deputy Superintendent of Police's report, there was dowry demand.Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.6. Mr.S.Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for the intervener argues along thelines of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).7. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records and has alsoperused the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as that of the DeputySuperintendent of Police. In the Revenue Divisional Officer's report, it is categoricallystated that there was no dowry demand. However, in the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice's report, he / she came to conclusion that there was dowry demand. 8. The petitioners have permanent residence and deep roots in the society andtherefore, there is less possibility for absconding. In view of the offence allegedagainst the petitioners, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of thepetitioners is not necessary in this case. Considering the same and also consideringthe nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners, this Court is inclined4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.7551 of 2025to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to the followingconditions.(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest or in theevent of their surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchulli, within aperiod of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, on executinga bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) along withtwo sureties each for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchulli.(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchulli, shall obtain a copy ofany one identity proof of each surety ensure their identity. (iii) The petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent-Police daily at09.00 a.m. until further orders.(iv) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by policeas and when required.(v) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threator promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade themfrom disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.7551 of 2025(vi) The petitioners shall also not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant, and witnesses and shall not tamper with the evidence.(vii) The petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.(viii) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numberto the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchulli.(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate, Thiruchulli or Trial Judge, as the case may be, is entitled to passappropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if theaforementioned conditions are imposed by him / heras laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283]. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 24/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VSG6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.7551 of 2025TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATETHIRUCHULLI.2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEVIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,A.MUKKULAM POLICE STATION,VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to GANESH N. Advocate SR.No.26867(F) DATED 24/04/2025 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7551 of 2025 Date :24/04/2025 SS/SAR- /26/05/2025/ 7P/6CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7