Kinshu Chauhan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Tenth day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.23392 of 2015 1 KINSHU CHAUHAN 2 HINA 3 MUKTA 4 GAURANG ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1 to 4 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN IN CRIME NO. 30/2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S C.K.TAMILCHELVAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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 accused Nos.1 to 4, in Crime No.30of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner was solemnized on 01.12.2013 and at the time of marriage, 42 sovereigns of gold jewels, house hold articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-were given as dowry. After marriage, both were living together in the parents home of the first accused/first petitioner and at that time the first petitioner was working in A & T Company and after marriage, he left the job and demanded more dowry to start business relating to CCTV Camera. 3.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not demanded any money and the defacto complainant was blackmailing the first petitioner to met out her demand for her luxurious expenses. She made a false compliant and she was claiming 20 lakhs from the first petitioner.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that already the first petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.516 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai and the same is pending.
5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners tortured and attacked the defacto complainant and investigation is pending.
6. In respect of the first petitioner, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 4 with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin, and on their 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 2 to 4 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners 2 to 4 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7.The petitioners 2 to 4 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/- 10/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, TUTICORIN. 2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN .
+1. CC to M/S C.K.TAMILCHELVAN Advocate SR.No. 70695. TS/11.12.2015/2P-6C/JGB-DP/SAR - II
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.23392 of 2015 Date :10/12/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/