Nageswari v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Third day of July Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.10316 of 2018 1 NAGESWARI 2 RENGAMMAL 3 SABARISH 4 MAGARAJAPILLAI 5 PERUMALPILLAI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 to 6 Vs THE STATE REP.BY ITS., THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : MR.T.SELVAKUMARAN, Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : MR.R.KARUNANITHI, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 294 (b), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Section 4, 5 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.23 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the intervener and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent.

3.The case set out in the F.I.R. is that the marriage between the parties was celebrated as per Community Rights and Customs on 23.11.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such marriage was performed and one, a name sake function was conducted for the purpose of enabling Arun Senthil to get Visa. However, the learned counsel for the intervener submits that the marriage actually took place, the photographs were produced before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the photographs were taken, at the time of betrothal. This Court wanted to knowing the intervener counsel can produce the copy of the Video https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

taken at the time of marriage. The learned counsel for the intervener on instructions submitted that no Video was taken. 4.This Court finds it impossible to be believe that marriage function would have taken place without Video Recording. Hence, this throws doubt on the very prosecution 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, Bhoothapandi, Kanyakumari District and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.

10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with common 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 as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions 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 made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.

sd/- 23/07/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BOOTHAPANDI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL 3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10316 of 2018 Date :23/07/2018 PK/RR/SAR-4/01.08.2018 : 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/