Laxmanan @ Baskaran v. State Rep.By Its
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Sixth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.9371 of 2015 1 LAXMANAN @ BASKARAN 2 SHANTHI 3 SHANMUGAVEL 4 KARTHEESWARI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs
1. STATE REP.BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.
CR.NO. 61 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.SANTHANAKRISHNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) FOR INTERVENOR : MR.S.J. CHAKARAVARTHY FOR EDDY & EMBOOS LAW FIRM 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 an alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A) IPC and 406 of IPC in Crime No.61 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. According to the de facto complainant that marriage between the first accused and the de facto complainant was solemnised on 15.06.2011 and at that time she was provided with 20 sovereigns of gold jewels, LED TV, Washing Machine and cot as dowry and apart from that he was paid Rs.2,50,000/-, for purchasing a Two wheeler and other house hold articles. It is further case of the de facto complainant that, she was taking treatment at Iswarya Hospital, Madurai for Test Tube Baby and for which she had spent Rs.6,50,000/- and due to the treatment her kidney was completely damaged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the de facto complainant is willing for final settlement of the dispute between the parties, the first petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the de facto complainant and also return the house hold articles presented at the time of marriage and he has also filed an affidavit of undertaking, dated 14.09.2015, filed by the first petitioner to that effect.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. However, the learned counsel for intervenor submitted that she is not willing to receive the amount from the accused.
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am 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, Melur, 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 10.00 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners 2 to 4 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition 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/- 06/10/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MELUR 2 DO THRO THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.P.SANTHANAKRISHNAN Advocate SR.No.58813 +1CC to M/S.EDDY & EMBBOSS LAW FIRM Advocate, SR.No. 59126
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9371 of 2015 Date :06/10/2015 AM/09.10.2015/NGM.SS/SAR-II/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/