Selvaraj v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Eleventh day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) Nos.13735 AND 13737 of 2017 1 SELVARAJ 2 SASI KALA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.2 & 3 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.13735/2017 S.VEERAKUMARAN, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.13737/2017 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, UTHAMAPALAYAM, THENI DISTRICT (CRIME NO.29 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioners : MR.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, Advocate for M/S.A.ARUNKUMAR Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETITIONS PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Since the matters relate to the same crime number, it is taken up together and a common order is passed.
2.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13735 of 2017, who are arrayed as A2 and A3 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13737 of 2017, who is arrayed as A1, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498(A) IPC, in Crime No.29 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant made a complaint before the respondent police stating that after the marriage, the de-facto complainant and the first accused were residing peacefully at Chennai and thereafter, difference of opinion
arose between them and alleged that at the instigation of his family members, the first accused harassed the de-facto complainant for demanding additional dowry.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the first accused and the de-facto complainant were living in Chennai and the other petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13735 of 2017 are living in their native place, which shows that the complaint is a false one. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State submitted that the investigating is pending. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am 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, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, Theni District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
(i) the petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13737 of 2017 and the petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.13735 of 2017, shall report before the investigating Officer daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; (ii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(iii)the petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the investigation officer;
(iv) the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail;
(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law and the bail granted stands cancelled automatically.
sd/- 11/10/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
NS TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE UTHAMAPALAYAM, THENI DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THENI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, UTHAMAPALAYAM, THENI DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+2. CC to M/S.A.ARUNKUMAR Advocate SR.No.32750,32751 GJM/RR/BS/SAR-2-20.10.2017-3P-7C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.13735 & 13737 of 2017 Date :11/10/2017