Mariya Jeyan Kennedy v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Tenth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.7745 of 2015 1 MARIYA JEYAN KENNEDY 2 ANNAIKILI 3 GNANAKAMALI 4 SUGNTHI 5 MICHEL SELVAM, 6 CHIRISTOPHER ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 1 to 6 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VALLIYOOR, TIRUNELVELI DIST. CR.NO. 5 OF 2015. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.BALAJI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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 Nos.1 to 6 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), and 506(i) of I.P.C., and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.5 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. According to the de-facto complainant, the accused have joined together and harassed her demanding dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and 150 sovereigns of gold jewels.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is an age difference between the de-facto complainant and the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant is 13 years younger than her husband and due to the age difference, misunderstanding developed between them and on 15.01.2015, she left the matrimonial home. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the first petitioner/A1 issued a lawyers notice for divorce and thereafter, this complaint was given and subsequently, the de-facto complainant had filed a petition under Domestic https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Violence Act and occupied the property of her mother-in-law and also looted the articles found therein. Hence, the second petitioner had filed the complaint against the de-facto complainant and since the police did not take any action, she filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6855 of 2015 to register a case against the de-facto complainant which was ordered on 16.04.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the marriage had taken place only on 12.11.2014 and due to the illegal demand of the accused, the de-facto complainant has preferred the complaint.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), 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 their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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. for a period of two weeks and the petitioners 2 to 6 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. 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/- 10/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR.
2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUNELVELI. 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VALLIYOOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.S.BALAJI Advocate SR.No.29527. TS/15.06.2015/2P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.7745 of 2015 Date :10/06/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/