Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/5800/2017ordered

P.Ganesan v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-05-11Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eleventh day of May Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN CRL OP(MD) No.5800 of 2017 1 P.GANESAN 2 G.MARIYAMMAL 3 MRS.PADMAVATHY 4 DR.USHANANDHINI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SAMAYANALOOR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT CRIME NO. 20 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A) and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act in Crime No.20 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the de facto complainant got married to one Arunkumar, who is the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein. The petitioners 3 and 4 herein are sisters-in-law of the de facto complainant. After marriage, both the defacto complainant and her husband lived in Australia and when they were in Australia, there was some misunderstanding between the husband and wife. He would further submit that the petitioners are living only in India and the date of occurrence took place on 01.05.2017, but, the FIR has been registered on 06.05.2017 and there is no specific over tact attributed against the petitioners. In support of his contention he has relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014

(3) MLJ (Crl) 353 (Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another) and prays for granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that A1 is not arrayed as an accused in this Crime number and the investigation is pending.

4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the date of occurrence took place on 01.05.2017, whereas the FIR has been lodged only on 06.05.2017 and that the de facto complainant and her husband were living separately in Australia. Now these petitioners are living separately in Chennai and the de facto complainant is living in Madurai, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to

4. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 4 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Additional Mahila Court ( Judicial Magistrate Level), Madurai on condition that the petitioners 2 to 4 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioners 2 to 4 shall report before the Thuraipakkam Police Station, Chennai daily at 10.00 am until further orders.

[b] the petitioners 2 to 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [c] the petitioners 2 to 4 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners 2 to 4 are directed to co-operate with the respondent police for investigation.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as not pressed as against 1 st petitioner.

sd/- 11/05/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT, (JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE LEVEL), MADURAI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SAMAYANALOOR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate SR.No.21948

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5800 of 2017 Date :11/05/2017 MKV-PM-PN-SAR 4/12.5.2017/3P-6C