Manikandan v. The Insepector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.20988 of 2015 1 MANIKANDAN 2 NAGALAKSHMI 3 VETTUKKANNAN @ SELVARAJ 4 ALAGUPONNU 5 MUTHULAKSHMI 6 RAMASAMY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ODDANCHATHIRAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, 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 the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A),294(b),323 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act n Crime No.17 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnised on 03.07.2011 and a male child was born in the wedlock. After the marriage, the petitioners demanded more dowry from the defacto complainant. The first petitioner is having illegal intimacy with another lady, who is working along with him and therefore, the first petitioner and the family members tortured the defacto complainant to give divorce, so that the first petitioner can marry another lady, who is working in his office.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the first petitioner is working as a Supervisor in a Chips Company and earning only Rs.5,000/- per month. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
But, the defacto complainant wanted to have a luxurious life and therefore, she has given a false complaint against the petitioners.
4. The learned Government (Crl. Side) submitted that the investigation of the case is pending.
5. Considering the nature of serious allegations made against the first petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 6 with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ottanchathiram, and on each of them executing a 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 am until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6. The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed against the first petitioner / Manikandan.
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/- 16/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,OTTANCHATHIRAM.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3 THE INSEPECTOR OF POLICE,ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ODDANCHATHIRAM,DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate SR.No.72090 trp CSL/GSV-AN/SAR-I/22.12.2015/2p/6c
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.20988 of 2015 Date :16/12/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/