S.Arunachalam v. State Rep By Inspector Of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fifteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.14706 of 2015 1 S.ARUNACHALAM 2 VASANTHA@VALLI 3 A.S.A.CHAKRAVARTHY 4 C.GOMATHI SATHIYA 5 SUBBU @ KAVITHA ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO. 3 TO 7 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 29 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.A.RAMAKRISHNAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A3 to A7, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 498-A and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.29 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.According to the de-facto complainant, the first accused even before marrying her, had intimacy with the second accused and suppressing the relationship, married her on 06.02.2012 and when it was questioned by the de-facto complainant, she was attacked by the first accused and it is further alleged that at the instigation of A2 to A7, the first accused harassed the de-facto complainant.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and they are nothing to do with the relationship between A1 and A2. It is further submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and the de-facto complainant has filed H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2015 before the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi against the first accused for divorce.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that at the instigation of A3 to A7, the first accused assaulted the de-facto complainant and also demanded dowry from her.
5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two common sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
8. 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/- 15/10/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI.
DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate SR.No.61408 +1cc to Mr.K.A.RAMAKRISHNAN, Advocate SR.No.61799
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14706 of 2015 Date :15/10/2015 NS/SKS-RR/SAR II/26.10.2015 : 2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/