Subramanian v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the First day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.18016 of 2017 1 SUBRAMANIAN 2 LAKSHMI 3 NIROSHA ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 to 3 Vs 1 THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, IN CR.NO. 20 OF 2017 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.

2 ASWINI ...2nd RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.R.VENKATESAN,Advocate for RIGHT LAW ASSOCIATES For Respondent 1: MR.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Respondent 2: Mr.D.VENKATESH, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused No.1 to 3, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b) r/w 506(i) of I.P.C., registered in Crime No.20 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 10.04.2017, when the second respondent/defacto complainant demanded the petitioners to return back all her gold ornaments, the petitioners beaten her indiscriminately and threatened her with dire consequences. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is in no way connected with the offences, hence he pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that investigation is still pending. 5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. This Court by an order dated 28.12.2017 granted Interim anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners and thereafter, on 24.01.2018, extended the interim anticipatory bail and the issue related to the petition was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench for amicable settlement.

6.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing the report received from the Mediation and Conciliation Centre was perused. During the time of Mediation, the dispute could not be succeeded. In the above circumstances, considering the fact that the case has been registered for the offence under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b) r/w 506(i) of I.P.C., considering the judgment of our Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and another [Crl.A.No.1277 of 2014], this Court inclined to made absolute the order passed by this Court on 28.12.2017, in which the interim anticipatory bail was granted in favour of the petitioner. sd/- 01/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARAIKUDI.

2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.RIGHT LAW ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.3290

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18016 of 2017 Date :01/03/2018 SMA/PM-PN/SAR-4/09.03.2018:2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/