Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/22434/2014ordered

Pandimuthu v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-06-24Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.22434 of 2014 1 PANDIMUTHU 2 SAKTHI 3 SANGEETHA 4 ANITHA 5 SURESH 6 SUGUMARAN 7 KARUTHAPANDI 8 MEENAKSHISUNDARAM ..PETITIONERS/ (*)ACCUSED Nos.A1,A2,A4,A5,A6,A7,A8 and A3 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANAMADURAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT (*)CRIME NO. 15 OF 2014 (*)Amended as per the order of this Hen'able Court date 12.12.2014 and made in MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.22434/2014 For Petitioner : M/S.A.RAHUL Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 498(A), 506(ii) of I.P.C and r/w. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.15 of 2014 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused have joined together and demanded 25 sovereign of gold jewels; a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant; abused her and also threatened her with dire consequences.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that not only the husband of the de-facto complainant, but the family members of the first petitioner and his friends were also falsely implicated with ulterior motive. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State who would submit that the petitioners have harassed and threatened the de-facto complainant by demanding additional dowry.

5. Considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioners in FIR, 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, Manamadurai, 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 first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders and the petitioners 2 to 8 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.

6. 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/- 24/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MANAMADURAI.

2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,SIVAGANGAI.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANAMADURAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

4.THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22434 of 2014 Date :24/06/2015 rg.30.06.2015 2p/5c.

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