Santhanam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.9875 of 2016 SANTHANAM ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION SAMAYANALLUR, MADURAI DISTRICT CR.NO.24 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S A.S.RAJESWARI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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.1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.24 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant and A.1 are divorcees and the marriage between them was solemnized on 25.10.2015. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de facto complainant gave 9 sovereigns of gold jewels and Sridhana articles worth Rs.10,00,000/-. After the marriage, the accused persons have ill-treated her and harassed her demanding more dowry and thrown out her from the matrimonial home. On complaint case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner did not demand any dowry. The petitioner is aged about 45 years and the de facto complainant is aged about 29 years and due to that the de facto complainant developed some dispute and made a false complaint against the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioner harassed the de facto complainant demanding more dowry.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, and on his 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 Judge concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 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/- 22/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT, MADURAI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SAMAYANALLUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT , MADURAI. +1cc to M/S.A.S.RAJESWARI, SR NO: 32106 Smn JA-NGM-MP/SAR.III/27.06.2016/2P:5C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9875 of 2016 Date :22/06/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/