Muthukumar 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.9933 of 2016 1 MUTHUKUMAR 2 MARY THANGAM 3 MARUDHAMUTHU 4 SAMPOORNAM 5 JOTHIMANI 6 INDIRANI 7 SINDHU 8 MARUTHACHALAM @ MADHAN 9 RAVI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 9 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, OTTANCHATHIRAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 4 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S C.R.SIVANESAN 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 9 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 498(A) IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.4 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 married the de facto complainant and after the marriage, the accused persons harassed the de facto complainant demanding more dowry. On complaint case has been registered for the above said offences.
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 first petitioner did not demand any dowry from the de facto complainant and the other petitioners are only inlaws of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant left the matrimonial home on her own volition.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioners harassed the de facto complainant demanding more dowry.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the first petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant and the others petitioners are only in-laws of the de facto 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, Ottanchadram, 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders and the petitioners 2 to 9 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions 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/- 22/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,OTTANCHADRAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, OTTANCHATHIRAM, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S C.R.SIVANESAN Advocate SR.No.32095 SMN CSL/SKS-RR/SAR-I/24.06.2016 : 2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9933 of 2016 Date :22/06/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/