A. Sengol Lawrence v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twelfth day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.9284 of 2015 1 A. SENGOL LAWRENCE 2 A.ANTHONYSAMY 3 A.ARULMARY 4 JOSEPHINE SUSAI MARY 5 ADAIKKALA JESSY ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5 VS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR, (CR.NO. 4/2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MRS.S.PRABHA, GOVERENMENT ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The first accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.4 of 2015 and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The learned counsel for the first petitioner submitted that this Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 5, referred the matter to Mediation and the defacto complainant did not appear for mediation for two hearings and thereafter appeared and the matter could not be settled between the parties. 3.The learned counsel further submitted that the first petitioner had filed I.D.O.P.No.23 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai against the defacto complainant for restitution of conjugal rights. Despite the petition was allowed on 20.03.2014, the defacto complainant did not come forward to comply the order and therefore, the first petitioner filed execution petition in E.P.No.185 of 2015 for attachment of salary of the defacto complainant on 10.10.2014 and subsequently, the defacto complainant preferred this complaint making reckless allegations against the accused on 16.05.2015. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the jewels and the articles of the defacto complainant are withheld by the accused and she was harassed demanding more dowry.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the first petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur, and on 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. The first petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

6. The first petitioner 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/- 12/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THANJAVUR.

2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

3. THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PUDUKKOTTAI.

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR,

5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTIONS Advocate SR.No. 45722

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9284 of 2015 2P/7C Date :12/08/2015 TE/IV/SAR-I 14/08/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/