J.Ramesh v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/01/2022 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI

1. J.RAMESH

2. JAYASREE

3. LALITHA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2,3 AND 4 VS THE STATE REP. BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUPPARANKUNDRDAM, MADURAI CITY.

(CRIME NO.26 OF 2021).

... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/s.A.John Vincent, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.26 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused 2, 3 and 4 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.26 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The allegation against the petitioners is that they commit dowry harassment to the defacto complainant. A case in Crime No.26 of 2021 was registered against the petitioners under sections 498 (A), 406, 506(i) of IPC.

1/3

3.On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that the first petitioner is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant. The second petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. The third petitioner is the grand mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. The wife did not co-operate with the husband for consummation of marriage and the husband is residing in abroad. The third petitioner is aged about 80 years. The husband has filed a H.M.O.P. petition before the Sub Court, Alandur. Only to harass the in-laws the defacto complainant has come forward with this false case and prayed the petitioners to be released on anticipatory bail. 4.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the petitioners are Accused Nos.2 to 4. In this case they demanded dowry. Report of the Social Welfare Officer is still pending and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

5.It is seen that the third petitioner is aged about 80 years and the petitioners 1 and 2 are aged above 50 years. Considering the nature of offence and considering the age of the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. 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 Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Magisterial Level, Madurai, 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 and the petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court once in a week i.e., on every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

7. 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.

sd/- 06/01/2022 / TRUE COPY / / /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

2/3

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO

1. THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA JUDGE, MAGISTERIAL LEVEL, MADURAI.

2. DO-THROUGH : THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUPPARANKUNDRDAM, MADURAI CITY.

4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.JOHN VINCENT A Advocate SR.No.135.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.166 of 2022 Date :06/01/2022 USK/JC/SAR-II/10.01.2022/3P/6C 3/3