L. Valliammal v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Third day of February Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.1789 of 2015 1 L. VALLIAMMAL 2 L. AYYAPPAN 3 L. THANGAVEL 4 L. GANESAN 5 S. KULANTHAIAMMAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.2 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.LAKSHMIKANTH Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.2 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 294(b), 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioners are now before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that Sivakumar (A1) got married to the de-facto complainant on 02.07.2014 and there appears to have been matrimonial discord between the spouses. Based on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, this case was registered and A1 was arrested and released on bail. These petitioners are relatives of A1. Since the allegations are not very serious, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar reported in 2014

(8) Scale 250, this Court is inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners, but with conditions.

3. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen

(15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Dindigul, on executing a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that, [a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

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

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].

sd/- 03/02/2015 / 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.S.LAKSHMIKANTH Advocate SR.No. 4904 SR : 05.02.2015 : 2P/6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1789 of 2015 Date :03/02/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/