Karpagam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Thirteenth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.11471 of 2016 1 KARPAGAM 2 SELVAKUMAR 3 MAHESWARI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4 TO 6 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAJAPALAYAM, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.5 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S K.SEEMARAJ Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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.4 to 6, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961, in Crime No.5 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on giving false promise of marrying the defacto complainant, A1 had physical contact with her and subsequently, he did not marry the defacto complainant. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the petitioner along with other accused persons threatened her with dire consequences and demanded Rs.3,50,000/- and 20 sovereigns of gold jewels as dowry for arranging marriage of the defacto complainant with A1. On complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioners have demanded dowry for arranging marriage of the defacto complainant with A1. Investigation is pending and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. 5.Considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 13/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAJAPALAYAM, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

+One cc to Mr.K.SEEMARAJ, Advocate, SR.No.36262 RL/4C/2P/SKS/RR/SARI/20/7/2016

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11471 of 2016 Date :13/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/