Lakshmi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Third day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.17342, 18431 and 19431 of 2015 LAKSHMI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IN CRL OP(MD) No.17342

1. VELLAISAMY

2. SUBRAMANI

3. KANNAGI

4. KAMARAJ ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.2,4,5,6 IN CRL OP(MD) No. 18431 VADIVEL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRL OP(MD) No. 19431 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.4 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN ALL THE PETITIONS FOR PETITIONER : M/S N.ANANDAKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN CRL OP(MD) Nos. 17342, 18431 FOR PETITIONER : M/S B,JAMEEL ARASU, ADVOCATE IN CRL OP(MD) No. 19431 FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.ANBARASAN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) IN ALL THE PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 and 498(A) of I.P.C., in Crime No.4 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused married the de-facto complainant in the year 2011 and the first accused has no potency.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the first petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and the other petitioners are in-laws of the de-facto complainant.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. This Court already referred the matter to the Mediation Centre and the Mediation Centre sent a report dated 13.10.2015. In the Mediation report, it is stated that out of four hearings, the petitioner was present two hearings and the de-facto complainant has continuously absent and the mediation could not succeed.

5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukotai and on their executing 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 first accused shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders and the other accused shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. 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 is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 03/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKOTAI.

2. DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKOTTAI.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to MR.V.SELVA, Advocate SR.No. 65094

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.17342, 18431 2P/6C and 19431 of 2015 TE/AMF/SAR-II : 06/11/2015 Date :03/11/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/