S.Raja Mohammed, v. State, Rep By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirteenth day of February Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.1493 of 2017 1 S.RAJA MOHAMMED 2 S.MEHAR BANU 3 ABROJA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 Vs STATE, REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANAPPARAI POLICE STATION, MANAPPARAI, TRICHY DIST.
CRIME NO.86 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.J.PADHMAAVATHI DEVI Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANDASAMY, 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, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Crime No.86 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent states that totally there are 3 accused in this case and the first petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and others are in-laws of the de-facto complainant. There is a family dispute between the de-facto complainant and the petitioners herein and the accused herein are said to have attacked the de-facto complainant with stick and caused simple injuries and the injured has been discharged from the hospital. There is a case in counter in Crime No.87 of 2017 on the basis of the complaint given by the first petitioner herein.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the marriage took place between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant on 03.03.2004 and out of wedlock, they were blessed with two girl children and within one year of the marriage, the wife of the first petitioner picked up quarrel with the first petitioner and his family members and left the matrimonial home.
4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, 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, Manapparai and on their 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 the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
5. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 13/02/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MANAPARAI, TRICHY DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANAPPARAI POLICE STATION, MANAPPARAI, TRICHY DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1cc to M/S.J.PADMAVATHI DEVI,ADVOCATE SR.No. 7899 AKV CSL/CM-MSA/SAR-I/20.02.2017 : 2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.1493 of 2017 Date :13/02/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/