Ramar v. The Insepector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Sixth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.19102 of 2015 1 RAMAR 2 KARALAM 3 VELLAMMAL 4 VANITHA @ KARUPPAYEE 5 VELLAIAMMAL ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICESTATION, ARUKPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, CRIME NO NOT KNOWN OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S R.UDHAYAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.Prabha Government 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 accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 406, and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.18 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. According to the de facto complainant that she married the first accused about 14 years ago and one daughter born to them, also died and thereafter, the accused have made arrangement for the second marriage of the first accused to get more money from them, when which was objected by the de facto complainant, she was harassed by the accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to matrimonial dispute the de facto complainant is residing away from the first petitioner and her earlier complaint for the same allegation was closed as mistake of fact which was reported by the respondent police in Crl.O.P(MD).Nos. 16727 and 16449 of 2015, dated 28.08.2015.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the first petitioner has filed HMOP.No.142 of 2011 against the de facto complainant seeking divorce, which is pending before the Sub Court, Aruppukottai and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

maintenance case filed by the de facto complainant in M.C.No.26 of 2011 is also pending, before the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai. It is further submitted that the second complaint filed by the de facto complainant implicating all the family members of the first accused is not maintainable in law.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one common surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the 1st petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners 2 to 5 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.

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/- 06/10/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARUPPUKOTTAI.

2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICESTATION, ARUKPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S R.UDHAYAKUMAR Advocate SR.No. 58577. TS/07.10.2015/2P - 6C NGM-SS/SAR -II

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19102 of 2015 Date :06/10/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/