M. Velmurugan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Ninth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.8940 of 2016 1 M. VELMURUGAN 2 DHANAM 3 M.PANDI 4 ANNA LAKSHMI 5 RASU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, CRIME NO. 12 OF 2016. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S V.PALANIACHAMY Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, 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.1 to 5, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 498(A), 494, 232, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.12 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and defacto complainant was solemnized on 15.11.2004. At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant gave 13 sovereign of gold jewels and household articles worth about Rs.60,000/-. After the marriage, they demanded another 5 sovereigns of gold jewels and throwm out the defacto complainant from the matrimonial home. A male child was born on 24.08.2005. The defacto complainant filed M.C.No.33 of 2015 for claiming maintenance. While so, A1 married A4 Annalakshmi and the same was questioned by the defacto complainant. On 24.05.2016, the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant and abused her with filthy language. On her complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged
by the prosecution. The defacto complainant filed M.C.No.33 of 2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. The defacto complainant refused to live with the husband and left the matrimonial home. A1 married A4 in the year 2007 and they have got two children. Now after 11 years, she has given a false complaint against the petitioners.
4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 5.Considering the facts 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.III, Dindigul 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 first and fourth petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders and the petitioners Nos.2,3 & 5 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. 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/- 09/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III, DINDIGUL.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+one cc to M/s.V.Palanichamy, Advocate in SR.No.28994
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8940 of 2016 Date :09/06/2016 CSL/SKS-RR/SAR-III/14.06.2016 :2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/