Muthulaxmi v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.9401 of 2016 MUTHULAXMI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PARAMAKUDI, RAMNAD DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 7/2016) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S K.MUTHU 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 petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 494, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in Crime No.7 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 A1 and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 13.11.2011.
At the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant gave 29 sovereigns of gold jewels to the defacto complainant and 6 sovereigns of gold to A1 and household articles to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- Subsequently, A1 and other accused demanded more dowry and A1 pressurised the defacto complainant to get Rs.35 lakhs from the parents of the defacto complainant for purchasing house and thrown out her from the matrimonial home. The brother and sister of A1 arranged second marriage to A1 with one Nagalakshmi daughter of one Durai. On 23.04.2016 one male child was born to A1 and said Nagalakshmi. On coming to know this fact, the defacto complainant questioned A1, he threatened her with dire consequences. On complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences. 3.
The case of the petitioner is that she is the sister-in-law of the defacto complainant and she is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. A1 the husband of the defacto complainant has granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9050 of 2016, dated 10.06.2016. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side).
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that A1 the husband of the defacto complainant has granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.9050 of 2016, dated 10.06.2016 and this petitioner is only sister-in-law of the defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi and on 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 petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6. The petitioner 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/- 16/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMAKUDI.
2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPUAM DISTRICT.
3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PARAMAKUDI, RAMNAD DISTRICT.
+1. CC to M/S K.MUTHU Advocate SR.No.31272.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9401 of 2016 Date :16/06/2016 AM/AAL.MPA/SAR-II/21.06.2016/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/