Dhaveethu v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Second day of June Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) No.7747 of 2017 1 DHAVEETHU 2 VETHANAYAGAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.A2 & A3 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT CRIME NO. 6 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.SENTHIL AYYANAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A2 and A3 in Crime No.6 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners colluding with the other accused are alleged to have harassed the defacto complainant by demanding dowry and conducted illegal marriage to A1 with another lady. He would further submit that the marriage between A1 and the defacto complainant was solemnized in the year 2002. The first petitioner is the father-inlaw of the defacto complainant. The second petitioner is the motherin-law of the defacto complainant. A1 and the defacto complainant lived separately, after their marriage. There is no specific overtact against the petitioners. Even as per the complaint, the specific allegation against these petitioners is that when the defacto complainant questioned about the illegal marriage of A1 with another lady, they were silent. The petitioners are innocent. They https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. They have been falsely implicated in this case.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent / Police submitted that the investigation is pending. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 No.I, Ramanathapuram and on their own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) without sureties and on further condition that the petitioners 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. 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 shall stand automatically dismissed.

sd/- 22/06/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,RAMANATHAPURAM. 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,RAMANATHAPURAM, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.M.SENTHIL AYYANAR Advocate SR.No.24857 GCG CSL/PM-PN/SAR-I/30.06.2017 : 2P/6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7747 of 2017 Date :22/06/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/