K.Sureshkumar, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of December Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.23584 of 2016 1 K.SURESHKUMAR 2 K.SAMPOORNAM 3 C.KANNAN 4 K.MEGALA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 4 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

CR.NO.40/2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONERS : M/S.V.BALAJI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : Mr.P.KANDASAMY, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 406, 498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.40 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the marriage between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant took place in the year 1999 and they got two children and one is aged about 15 years and another one is aged about 7 years. The defacto complainant is working as Lab Technician at Government Hospital, Karur and after the death of father of the de-facto complainant, she insisted the first petitioner to come and live with her mother at Dindigul as 'Veettu Mappilai'. He further states that the de-facto complainant's mother is working as house maid in the house of Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul and the second and third petitioners are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and fourth petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner herein.

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

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is still pending.

4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the first petitioner is working as Office Assistant at Karur Municipalaity, 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 their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 5.

The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 20/12/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, DINDIGUL.

2. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, DINDIGUL.

3. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.V.BALAJI Advocate SR.No. 81975 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.23584 of 2016 Date :20/12/2016 AKV TE/SKN/SAR-I : 03/01/2017 : 2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/