Vijayalakshmi And Others vs State

G.Ilangovan, J

The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 498(A), 506 (i) IPC and 4 of TNPWH Act, in Crime No.25 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the first accused got married on 06.04.2015. During the time of marriage, totally 51 sovereigns of gold jewels and house hold articles were given as Sridhana. Further, Rs.2,00,000/-was transferred to the account of the second petitioner. After marriage, the petitioners, who are in-laws of the defacto complainant made harassment to the defacto complainant demanding more dowry. On 11.03.2019, the first accused sent divorce notice. On 21.03.2023, first accused filed an affidavit before the Principal Family Court, Bengaluru, stating that all the articles and jewels were returned back to the defacto complainant. But till date, the accused persons did not return the Sridhana articles and the jewels also. Hence, the complaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The first accused was granted anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P(MD) No.14557 of 2023, dated 07.03.2023. So far as this petitioners are concerned, they are in-laws of the defacto complainant and only limited overt act is attributed against the petitioners. The third petitioner is the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant, who is residing in Chennai, she is no way connected in this case.

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that the 51 sovereigns of gold has been given to the third respondent and the same was taken by her, but failed to return. Even before the Mediation Centre, the petitioners failed to appear.

Considering the nature of offence and also considering that it is a family issue and co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, before the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

Let the defacto complainant give a seperate complaint against the persons with regard to the above said custody fo the jewels, since it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such jewellary was handed over to the third respondent. Since it is the serious dispute, let the petitioners appear before the respondent Police once in a month (i.e) on first sunday of every month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders .

The petitioners 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 petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.