R. Rakilan@ Ragul v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Third day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22059 of 2015 1 R. RAKILAN@ RAGUL 2 KRISHNAMMAL 3 R. RAKITHA 4 C. MUTHUSAMY CHETTIAR ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Vs 1 State rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARUR,KARUR DISTRICT, CR NO.25 OF 2015 ... 1st RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 S.suriya ... 2nd RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.SADASIVAM 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, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 341 and 506(i) of I.P.C., r/w. Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.25 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 defacto complainant and the first petitioner was solemnised on 28.10.2012 and thereafter, the petitioners harassed the de-facto complainant demanding additional dowry and on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the case has been registered for the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant did not co-operate with the matrimonial life and even after the compromise by the elders and Panchayators, the de-facto complainant left the matrimonial home on 12.05.2015 voluntarily and thereafter, the first petitioner has filed a H.M.O.P.No.3117 of 2015 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai for divorce.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioners had harassed the de-facto complainant demanding 20 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.2 lakhs.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, Karur District and on their 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 the first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders and the other 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 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 23/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, KARUR, KARUR DISTRICT 2 -DO-THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARUR,KARUR DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.R.SADASIVAM Advocate SR.No.67005 sm:sks-rr-SAR-II:26.11.2015:2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.22059 of 2015 Date :23/11/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/