Kali Muthu v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixth day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.24959 of 2015 1 KALI MUTHU 2 KALAI MANI 3 KALI RAJ ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, JEEYAPURAM, TRICHY DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. (NOT KNOWN) OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S M.PITCHAI MUTHU 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 Nos.2 to 4, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b),376,417,420 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.01 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on promising of marriage, A1 had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant and tied Thali in the temple. Thereafter, both of them were living together in the maternal aunt of the defacto complainant for two weeks and after two weeks, the first accused left the defacto complainant at the instigation of the petitioners and the petitioners threatened her with dire consequences.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the A2 is the father of A1, A3 is sister of A1, A4 is brother in law of A1 respectively. It is further stated the A1 married the defacto complainant against the wish of the petitioners, due to which some mis-understanding arose between A1 and the petitioners herein and the A1 is not living with the petitioners and hence, he prays for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the investigation is pending.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are in laws of defacto complainant, 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 arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Trichy, Trichy District 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 petitioners 1 and 3 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 am until further order and the second petitioner being a lady 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/- 06/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III,TRICHY 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TRICHY 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,JEEYAPURAM, TRICHY DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S M.PITCHAI MUTHU Advocate SR.No.1663
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.24959 of 2015 Date :06/01/2016 TRP AA/SKS-RR/SAR-II/11.01.2016/2p-6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/