Karthick v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Ninth day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.21366 of 2015 1 KARTHICK 2 SANKILIAMMAL ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs State rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARUR TOWN & DISTRICT, CR. NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.MOORTHY Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Govt. 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, in Crime No.not known of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 494 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 06.02.2014. After their marriage, due to some quarrel, the petitioners sent the defacto complainant to her matrimonial home. Therefore, she has given a complaint against the petitioners.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the defacto complainant has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and suddenly, she has given a false complaint against the petitioners.

4.When the matter came up for hearing on 17.11.2015, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that petition enquiry is pending and on that basis, this Court granted an order of interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.12.2015, both the petitioners and the defacto complainant were present before this Court and at that time, the defacto complainant informed this Court that the first petitioner married one Nandhini as second wife and the first petitioner is not permitting the defacto complainant in the matrimonial home. The matter stands adjourned to 07.12.2015. On 07.12.2015, the defacto complainant alone was present and there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. The matter stands adjourned to 09.12.2015. Today, also when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.

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

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

6. Considering the gravity of the offence and nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 09/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARUR TOWN & DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

sm:AAL-MPA:SAR I:16.12.2015:2P/3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.21366 of 2015 Date :09/12/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/