R.Vairamuthu v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty First day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.1126 of 2016 1 R.VAIRAMUTHU 2 K.RAMAMOORTHY 3 R.SHANTHI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SAMAYANALLUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.
CR.NO. 1 OF 2016. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : MR.J.ANANDAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, 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 as accused Nos.1 to 3, in Crime No.1 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498(A),406 & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 21.02.2014. At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant gave 25 sovereigns of gold jewels, house hold articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as dowry. After marriage, both lived together in the matrimonial home at Chennai. The first petitioner is having illicit intimacy with A5. Due to illicit intimacy with A5, the first petitioner and others tortured the defacto complainant and demanded dowry and hence, she has given a complaint against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is the husband and the second and third petitioners are the in-laws of the defacto complainant and they are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that earlier the petitioners filed a petition in Crl.O.P(MD)No.23159 of 2015 and when the matter came up for hearing on 06.01.2016, this Court closed the petition on the submission made by the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Government Advocate (Criminal Side) that already petition enquiry has been conducted and closed. Subsequently on 10.01.2016, this complaint has been registered against the petitioners only due to ulterior motive to wreak vengeance.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the investigation is pending.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Madurai 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 first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and the petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
7. 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/- 21/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO
1. THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT (MAGISTRATE LEVEL), MADURAI.
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SAMAYANALLUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.
3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S S.RAVI Advocate SR.No. 3589
ORDER
IN PS CRL OP(MD) No.1126 of 2016 TE/JGB-DP/SAR-II : 27/01/2016 : 2P/5C Date :21/01/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/