Venkatesh Babu v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty First day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.15600 of 2015 1 VENKATESH BABU 2 SAGUNTHALA 3 SUGANTHI 4 GOBIKRISHNAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 INDUMATHI ... INTERVENER Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, IN CRIME NO. 22/2015. RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S M.SUBASH BABU Advocate For Intervener : MR.CHAMUNDI BOSE FOR M/S.KARA ASSOCIATES For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A4, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 313, 498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.22 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.According to the de-facto complainant, she was harassed by the accused demanding Rs.10 lakhs as additional dowry and she was forced to abort the child.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and the case was registered on the basis of the complaint dated 07.08.2015 given by the de-facto complainant and in the earlier complaint, the de-facto complainant had received all the jewels and articles on 13.05.2015 and also issued a receipt. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant has also filed a private complaint against the petitioners under Domestic Violence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Act in C.R.M.P.No.3473 of 2015, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul in the month of June 2015. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed for granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioners contending that the de-facto complainant was forced to undergo abortion and therefore, the accused was not entitled to get anticipatory bail.
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.II, Dindigul 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/- 21/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,DINDIGUL.
2 DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL. 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S M.SUBASH BABU Advocate SR.No.55816
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15600 of 2015 Date :21/09/2015 rg.23.09.2015/SK/SKN/SAR-I 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/