Amutha v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21/06/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
1. Amutha
2. R.Pandiselvam
3. Selva ... Petitioners/Accused No.5 to 7 Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
(Crime No.06 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant Divya Bala ... Intervenor/Defacto Complainant In Crl.MP(MD).4570/2022 in Crl.OP(MD)No.5688/2022 For Petitioners : Mr.K.MAHENDRAN Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.VAIKKAM KARUNANITHI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : M/s.A.ARUL JENIFER, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.06 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 498(A), 406 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.06 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to matrimonial dispute between the first accused and the defacto complainant, the petitioners and other accused harassed the de-facto complainant by demanding additional dowry. Hence, the complaint. 1/3
3.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/ intervenor submitted that the first accused is the husband of the defacto complainant and he is living in Dubai and he has been purposefully hidden by the co-accused and if he comes out to India, there is possibility of settlement between the husband and wife. So, the matter may be referred to mediation.
4.However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the accused Nos.2 to 4 have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.5733 and 5871 of 2022, dated 06.05.2022. The petitioners are only distant relatives and they cannot be forced to bring the first accused to India.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the investigation is going on. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the limited role alledgedly played by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, however, with stringent conditions.
7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi 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 on every Saturday at 10.30 am until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
8.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 21/06/2022 / TRUE COPY / /06/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
2/3
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ARANTHANGI.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ARANTHANGI, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.MAHENDRAN.K Advocate SR.No.6027
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.5688 of 2022 Date :21/06/2022 SA/VR/SAR.2/29.06.2022/3P/6C 3/3