Ruby v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twelfth day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.658 of 2016 1 RUBY 2 GERGEO @ JORE JEENA @ BINDHU 3 REJIN @ REJE ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3,4 AND 6 Vs.
STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KUZHITHURAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT CR.NO.2 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S C.KISHORE Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, 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.3, 4 and 6, in Crime No.2 of 2016 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), 495, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Act and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 20.01.2011 and at the time of marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs.5 lakhs and 75 sovereigns of gold and household articles and further, they have suppressed the first marriage of the first accused and hence, on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the present case has been registered.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are only the in-laws of the defacto complainant and it is the matrimonial problem between the first accused and the defacto complainant and only to harass the petitioners, she has given a false case against the petitioners. Further, the earlier complaint given by the defacto complaint was closed and in that case, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in crime number not known stage. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioners are the in-laws of the defacto complainant and they
demanded dowry from the defacto complainant and suppressed the earlier marriage of the first accused and investigation is pending. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are the in-laws of the defacto complainant, 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, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District 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 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 stands dismissed.
sd/- 12/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PADMANABHAPURAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
2 -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL.
3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,KUZHITHURAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S C.KISHORE Advocate SR.No.2341 akm/20.01.2016/ 2p- 6c/MP/PM/SAR-II
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.658 of 2016 Date :12/01/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/