1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Eighth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15464 of 2011 1 RAMESH KANNAN, 2 SUSEELA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 Vs STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVAGANGAI TALUK POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. (CR.NO.232/2011) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.V. KANNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.11.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 336 of I.P.C @ 174 of Cr.P.C. u/s 304 (B) and 302 I.P.C., in Crime No.232 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. Heard Mr.V.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State. 3. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first petitioner is the husband and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the accusation against the husband was that he has poured kerosene on the person of the deceased wife and lit fire and due to the said incident, she got injuries and subsequently, she died in the hospital. He would further submit that there is no allegation against the second petitioner/mother-in-law. However, she was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He would further submit that the first petitioner had also sustained burn injuries and the case was given falsely by the deceased wife against the petitioners. He would further submit that the incident had happened on 07.09.2011, but the complaint was given only on 08.09.2011 and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested, after a long delay, on 05.11.2011. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and ready to abide the conditions likely to he imposed against them. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the first petitioner was implicated in the incident by the very same complaint given by the deceased woman herself. He would further submit that the participation of second petitioner was also made out during the investigation and she is also equally guilty with the first petitioner. He would further submit that the investigation is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 still pending and if for any reason the petitioners are granted bail, there is a possibility of absconding from the clutches of law. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the complaint was given by the deceased woman herself on the next day of the incident at the Government Hospital through a statement recorded by the police. The wife of the first petitioner died subsequently and therefore, the case has been altered into 302 I.P.C. In the said complaint, she had clearly stated that the first petitioner had demanded bike to be obtained from her father and there was a dowry harassment and due to the said non-compliance of the demand, he has poured kerosene over her and lit fire. 6. In the said circumstances, I could see that the said complaint could be considered as a dying declaration. In the said complaint, I could not see any participation of the second petitioner. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, her participation was established by the examination of some other witnesses during the investigation. 7. In the said circumstances, a prima facie case is made out for grant of bail to the second petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the second petitioner alone. So far, the first petitioner is concerned, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Therefore, the bail petition regarding the first petitioner is dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kulithalai and on further condition that the second petitioner shall appear before the All Women Police Station, Sivagangai daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and also appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. sd/- 28/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,KULITHALAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVAGANGAI TALUK POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,SIVAGANGAI. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY. 6. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, TRICHY. 7. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.V. KANNAN Advocate SR.No.41775 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15464 of 2011 Date :28/11/2011 RJ/29.11.11/(2p/9c) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/