Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9005/2015disposed of

Arumugam v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-06-01Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the First day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.9005 of 2015 1 ARUMUGAM 2 CHINNATHAL @ CHINTHAMANI ... PETITIONERS/A2 & A3 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUMAYAM, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

(CR.NO.8 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.A.K.MANICKAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor: MR.S.PRABHU, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A2 and A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 294(B), 323 and 506(i)of IPC, in Crime No.8 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that de-facto complainant and A1 fell in love with each other and A1 promised to marry the de-facto complainant and on the assurance given by A1,the de-facto complainant went along with him to various places and now, A1 had prepared to engage with some other girl and when the same was questioned, all the accused persons threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the 1st petitioner is the distant relative and the 2nd petitioner is the unmarried sister of A1 and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) for the

respondent and the learned counsel for the intervener/de-facto complainant.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the nature of the allegation made against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

7. 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/- 01/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THIRUMAYAM.

2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUMAYAM, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.A.K.MANICKAM Advocate SR.No.26778

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9005 of 2015 Date :01/06/2015 PA/03.06.2015/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/