Henry v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourth day of May Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.7794 of 2016 1 HENRY 2 S. MARTIN 3 NIRMALA 4 DELBIN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 to 4 Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, COLACHAL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, CR NO. 9 OF 2016. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S N.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE(CRL.SIDE) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.9 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 420 IPC and Section 3(1)4& 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the petitioners are now before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent. 3.It is seen that the First Information Report in this case has been registered pursuant to the directions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the complaint given by the defacto complainant. 4.Taking into consideration the nature of the allegation against these petitioners in the F.I.R, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, anticipatory bail is granted, but with conditions.

5. Accordingly, the petitioners 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 Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, on executing a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

separate 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 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 first petitioner shall report before the respondent Police every day at 06.30 p.m. until further orders and other petitioners shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation.

[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. [e] The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send compliance report to the office of the Government Advocate (Crl. Side) as to whether the first petitioner is complying with the condition or not.

sd/- 04/05/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERANIEL.

2. DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, COLACHAL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,

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

+1. CC to M/S N.SUBRAMANI Advocate SR.No. 26072 ORDER IN RR/PS CRL OP(MD) No.7794 of 2016 TE/AAL-MPA/SAR-I : 05/05/2016 : 2P/6C Date :04/05/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/