Deepkumar v. Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.6272 of 2015 1 DEEPKUMAR 2 KR.CHIDAMBARAM 3 C.BANUMATHI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUKKOSTIYUR POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DIST, (CR.NO.164 OF 2014) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.CHETTINAD LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN 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 418, 498-A, 406 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.164 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused have demanded dowry and also retained some of the Sridhana articles given by the parents of the defacto complainant at the time of marriage. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioners have returned the entire articles to the defacto complainant whichever available with the petitioners. 4.The learned counsel for the intervenor Mr.S.Venkatesan submitted that the petitioners have retained 20 sovereign of gold jewels and two Silver Plates. For which the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' jewels weighing 11.
5 sovereign is still with the defacto complainant and one chain was lost long back which was known to the defacto complainant but now she falsely alleged that the petitioners have retained that jewels. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.
he has also made an endorsement to that effect. Hence, this petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner. 6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the respondent has already completed the investigation and also laid the charge sheet in this case.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 & 3, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 & 3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned **Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur 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 2 & 3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners 2 & 3 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.
8. The petitioners 2 & 3 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/- 29/04/2015 **Amended as per the order of this Court dt.03.06.2015 and Time is granted by two weeks from the date on which the order copy is made ready / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO (To be substituted for the order already despatched) **1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THIRUPPATHUR 2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARAIKUDI 3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,SIVAGANGAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THIRUKKOSTIYUR POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI 5 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.CHETTINAD LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate SR.No.27169
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6272 of 2015 Date :29/04/2015 AA/04.05.2015/2p- 6c/ AA/18.06.2015/2p- 6c/(Amended Order) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/