Muthupandi v. The State of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 04/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI

1.Muthupandi

2.Ramayee

: Petitioners/A1 & A2

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, A.Mukkulam Police Station, Virudhunagar District. Crime No.22 of 2025) : Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.N.Ganesh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 194 BNSS in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2It is not in dispute that the first petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the second petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the deceased and A1 was held on 21.01.2024 and at that time of marriage, the parents of the deceased gave 11 sovereigns of gold jewels out of 30 jewels and other sridhanas and further the petitioners demanded 19 sovereigns of gold jewels and tortured her and due to the torture of the petitioners the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the complaint.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that there was no dowry harassment and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police has filed a status report stating that the investigation is in progress and the second petitioner/A2 was already arrested and in judicial custody. He would further submit that there existed family dispute between the first accused and the deceased and hence, the petitioners said to have tortured the deceased and unable to tolerate the same, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner.

¶6In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (criminal Side), this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as infructuous in respect of the second petitioner/A2.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence the custodial interrogation of the first petitioner is necessary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the first petitioner. sd/-

04.07.2025

/ TRUE COPY / / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. das TO

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchulli.

¶2To Through: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchulli.

3.The Inspector of Police, A.Mukkulam Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9321 of 2025 Date : 04/07/2025 KM (24.07.2025)/4P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023.