Ashok Kumar, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Ninth day of February Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.236 of 2017 1 ASHOK KUMAR 2 PAVUNTHAI 3 KRISHNAVENI 4 MAHALAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 Vs THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ARUPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.23/2016 ... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT(S) For Petitioner : M/S.M.JEGADEESH PANDIAN 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 Nos.1 to 4, in Crime No.23 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498(A) of I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the respondent/State. 3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) on instructions submitted that there are totally four accused in this case, who are the petitioners herein and due to the instigation made by the petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are the in-laws of the defacto complainant, the first petitioner, who is the husband of the defacto complainant has continuously harassed her. He further submitted that the first petitioner is working as Village Administrative Officer and the defacto complainant in this case is working as a Teacher and there was some misunderstanding between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant at the instigation of the petitioners herein.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the marriage, the defacto complainant insisted the first petitioner
to lead a separate life and also insisted him not to share his income to his family and it was objected by him and due to that, misunderstanding arose between them and subsequently, the defacto complainant went to the extent of lodging complaint against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that no-body is injured in the alleged occurrence, 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 arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6.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/- 09/02/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,ARUPPUKOTTAI.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ARUPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.M.JEGADEESH PANDIAN Advocate SR.No.7454
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.236 of 2017 PM Date :09/02/2017 CSL/SV-MMS/SAR-III/14.02.2017 : 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/