Cannot grant bail for heinous crimes of domestic violence: Madras High Court

Crl.A.No.1821IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.04.2021C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGANCrl.A.No.1821B.Balamurugan... AppellantVs.1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri Krishnagiri District.2.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Krishnagiri Krishnagiri District.3.M.Ilakkiya...RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A)of Cr.P.C. to set aside the dismissal order passed in C.M.P.No.4321 in Cr.No.21 by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge Krishnagiri dated 26.02.2021 and enlarge him on bail.1 7 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Crl.A.No.1821For Appellant:Mr.T.S.ArthanareeswaranFor Respondents: Mrs.T.P.Savitha Government Advocatewould submit that during the pendency of the appeal the defacto complainant delivered a child. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides has rejected the application for bail petition by a well considered order and therefore no 3 7 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Crl.A.No.1821interference is called for with the said order and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant married the defacto complainant on 25.02.2020 and after the marriage they lived at the house of the accused at Bodinaickenpatty. During those days the appellant accused abused the complainant physically and thereafter absconded leaving the complainant alone. On the basis of the complaint given by the complainant before the Edappadi Police Station the Police brought back the appellant accused and made him live with the complainant. While so the appellant accused abused the complaint physically and mentally by insulting her by referring to her caste name in the presence of others and by abusing her using filthy language. 8. It is to be noted that the appellant married the defacto complainant on 25.02.2020 however not willing to live with the defacto complainant and 4 7 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Crl.A.No.1821also not yet registered the marriage. It is also to be noted that allegation against the appellant accused is that he abused the defacto complainant with filthy language tortured her both mentally and physically also intentionally insulted and abused by calling her caste name. A perusal of the records it could be seen that it is not the first occasion the appellant accused abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and abused her by calling her caste name and on the earlier occasion also the appellant accused abused the defacto complainant. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the serious nature of the offence and also considering the fact that the appellant accused abused the defacto complainant by calling her caste name this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant accused accordingly the Appeal is dismissed.26.04.2021Speaking Order Non speaking orderIndex : Yes No.Internet : Yes. r n s5 7 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Crl.A.No.1821To1.The Principal District Sessions Judge Krishnagiri.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri Krishnagiri District.3.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Krishnagiri Krishnagiri District.4.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai.6 7 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis Crl.A.No.1821P.VELMURUGAN J.r n sCrl.A.No.182126.04.20217 7 

Summary: When the wife is being physically as well as mentally tortured, granting of bail cannot be permitted, held, a single-judge bench of Justice P Velmurugan, while adjudicating the matter in B.Balamurugan vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police; [Crl.A.No.185 of 2021.] Marriage between the appellant and the de-facto complainant went on happily only for few days and thereafter, the complainant began to show her true face and abused the appellant by using vulgar and filth language and even on one occasion, the complainant bitten the accused finger and pulled out his nail and when the appellant take this matter before the Edappadi Police Station, the Police did not take any action against the complainant, but simply warned the complainant not to repeat it again. It is further submitted that the appellant not even one occasion, humiliated the complainant by abusing her by referring to her caste name or by abusing her physically, as alleged and the defacto complainant only tortured him and the appellant having lost his patience and tolerance, filed a writ petition and the same is pending. However, the learned Judge, without considering the above fact, dismissed the bail petition filed by the appellant, which warrants interference of this Court. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that during the pendency of the appeal, the defacto complainant delivered a child. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both sides, has rejected the application for bail petition by a well-considered order and therefore, no interference is called for with the said order and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant married the defacto complainant on 25.02.2020 and after the marriage, they lived at the house of the accused at Bodinaickenpatty. During those days, the appellant /accused abused the complainant physically and thereafter absconded leaving the complainant alone. On the basis of the complaint given by the complainant before the Edappadi Police Station, the Police brought back the appellant /accused and made him live with the complainant. While so, the appellant/accused abused the complaint physically and mentally by insulting her by referring to her caste name in the presence of others and by abusing her using filthy language. Allegation against the appellant / accused is that he abused the defacto complainant with filthy language, tortured her both mentally and physically, also intentionally insulted and abused by calling her caste name. A perusal of the records, it could be seen that it is not the first occasion, the appellant/accused abused the defacto complainant with filthy language and abused her by calling her caste name, and on the earlier occasion also, the appellant/accused abused the defacto complainant.