A.Muthuvel v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Sixth day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) Nos.21135 and 21136 of 2014 A.MUTHUVEL ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1 IN CRL OP 21135 OF 2014 MADHAVI ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 2 IN CRL OP 21136 OF 2014 Vs STATE REP BY: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOVILPATTI WEST POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.718 OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH OP'S For Petitioner : M/S.A.THIYAGARAJAN Advocate IN CRL OP 21135 OF 2014 For Petitioner : M/S.MR. P.T. RAMESH RAJA Advocate IN CRL OP 21136 OF 2014 For Respondent : M/s.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) IN BOTH OP'S PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as the First and Second Accused in Crime No. 718 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 451, 294(b), 506(i) and 494 of IPC, and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Accordingly to the defacto complainant, his wife/A2 had married the first accused while the divorce petition is pending and abused him and threatened him with dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused is a co employee of the second accused and in the divorce proceedings, the second accused had filed an application for interim maintenance and when the application was pending the defacto complainant came to the office of the second accused and scolded her with filthy language and the first accused has attempted to pacify them and therefore, a false complaint was given against the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondent police.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the state.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances off the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. 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, Kovilpatti, and on each of them 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 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. 6.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15days from the date on which the order copy made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 06/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOVILPATTI WEST POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

2 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO,. II KVOILPATTI 4 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN

2. CC to M/S.A.THIYAGARAJAN Advocate SR.No.36464 36463 DM 24 JUNE 15 2p; 7c

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.21135 & 21136 of 2014 Date :06/07/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/