Balamurugan v. The Sub 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) Nos.8344 and 6633 of 2015 BALAMURUGAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED-1 IN CRL OP(MD).No.8344 of 2015 1 MADURAI VEERAN 2 RAMUTHAI 3 GNANAGURU 4 VELLAITHAI 5 MUNIYANDI 6 GOVINDARAJ ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 7 IN CRL OP(MD).No.6633 of 2015 Vs STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MAMSAPURAM POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
IN CRIME NO. 52 OF 2015. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S.R.EROTTUCHAMY Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
IN THE BOTH THE PETITIONS
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who are arrayed as A-1 to A-7, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 354, 417, 506(i) of IPC and Sec. 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 of IPC in Crime No.52 of 2015, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and 100 sovereigns of jewels from the de facto complainant, to marry the sister of the de facto complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a dispute between the bride and bride groom, after the betrothal and due to which marriage could not be performed. He further submitted that A1 is ready to marry the sister of de facto complainant.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed the petitions stating that the de facto complainant had made all arrangements for marriage of his sister and one day prior to the marriage, the petitioners have demanded dowry Rs.2,00,000/- as cash and 100 Sovereigns of the jewels and therefore, the marriage fixed on 03.04.2015 was not solemnized. He further submitted that after registration of the case, the accused have attacked the Advocate of the de facto complainant, for which a case has been registered.
5. In view of the stand taken by the the sister of the de facto complainant / bride that she is not ready to marry the first petitioner, as per the earlier proposal.
6.Considering the above facts, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputur 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 shall appear before the respondent police twice a day daily at 10.30 am and 5.00 pm until further orders. 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/- 29/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SRIVILLIPUTTUR 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTTUR 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MAMSAPURAM POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+2. CC to M/S.R.EROTTUCHAMY Advocate SR.No.23590 & 23592
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.8344 & 6633 of 2015 Date :29/04/2015 NA/05/05/2015/P2/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/