S.Bharani vs The State Represented By
2025 Latest Caselaw 1557 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1557 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 January, 2025

Madras High Court

S.Bharani vs The State Represented By on 7 January, 2025

                                                                                 Crl.A.No.1663 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 07.01.2025

                                                      CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                              Crl.A.No.1663 of 2024

                     S.Bharani                                  ...      Appellant /Accused

                                                         Vs.

                     1.The State represented by
                     Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                     Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

                     2.The Inspector of Police,
                     W32-All Women Police Station,
                     Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

                     3.S.Selvajothi                       ...                       Respondents

                     Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Cr.P.C praying
                     to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 19.12.2024 in Crl.MP
                     No.3733 of 2024 passed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge at
                     Chengalpattu and set aside the same and consequently enlarge the petitioner
                     on bail in connection with Cr.No.12 of 2024 pending on the fileof the 2 nd
                     respondent.




                     Page No.1 of 8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         Crl.A.No.1663 of 2024




                                        For Appellant             : Mr.R.Vinayaga Vishnu
                                        For Respondents 1 & 2 :       Dr.C.E.Pratap,
                                                                      Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

                                        For 3rd Respondent        :   Ms.A.Vinupradha
                                                                      for Mr.M.Mohamed Haroon

                                                        JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellants' bail application

filed before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.

2. On a complaint by the third respondent, a case was registered in

Crime No.12 of 2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 318 (2) of BNS

and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act r/w Section 351(2) of BNS 2023.

3. The allegation in the complaint is that the victim/3rd respondent

and the appellant were working in the same company; that the victim was a

divorcee ; that the appellant and the victim had a love affair and the elders

of the family arranged for the marriage; thereafter the parents of the

appellant started demanding dowry and therefore the marriage could not be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

solemnized; that when the victim questioned the appellant and his parents,

they abused the victim in filthy language and also humiliated her caste.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that

the appellant sought for bail before the trial court in Crl.MP No.3733 of

2024 and the said petition was dismissed on 19.12.2024 on the ground that

there were serious allegations and that the investigation is at the early stage.

The learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the appellant and the

third respondent had a love affair ; that the allegations of dowry have been

invented for the purpose of case and in any case, the complainant herself

admitted that the betrothal was cancelled only at her instance and

considering the period of incarceration, the appellant may be released on

bail.

5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/third respondent,

per contra submitted that though there was a love affair, the marriage could

not be solemnized only because there was a dowry demand; that when

subsequently questioned, the victim was humiliated on account of her caste

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

and also abused in filthy language; that considering the seriousness of the

offence, the bail application may be dismissed.

6. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the

respondents 1 & 2 also reiterated the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the defacto complainant/third respondent and considering the

nature of allegations, strongly opposed for granting bail to the appellant.

7. Admittedly, the appellant and the victim had a love affair. It is also

seen from the complaint that betrothal could not take place since the

brother-in-law of the victim was ill. The complainant does not specifically

state about the nature of dowry demanded. Be that as it may. The defacto

complainant herself, after making all those allegations, had sought for the

intervention of the police for solemnizing her marriage with the appellant.

Therefore, this court is of the view that considering the nature of allegations

and the period of incarceration, further custody of the appellant is not

required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, this court is inclined to

grant bail to the appellant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject

to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall execute 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 Principal District Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu ;

(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Judge may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(iii) the respondent police is directed to ensure that there is no threat to the life and safety of the de-facto complainant. In the event of any threat, appropriate steps to be taken.

(iv) the appellant shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(v)the appellant shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(vi)the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(vii) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellants in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellants released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(viii)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 made

in Crl.MP No.3733 of 2024 by the learned Principal District & Sessions

Judge, Chengapattu is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.

07.01.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rgr

Note : Issue order copy by 07.01.2025 Upload the order copy forthwith.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1.The Principal District Sessions Judge Chengalpattu.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

3.The Inspector of Police, W32-All Women Police Station, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.