Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/22961/2013bail granted

Subramanian v. The Inspector Of Police

2013-12-19Honourable Mr Justice M. Sathyanarayanan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL OP(MD) No.22961 of 2013 1 SUBRAMANIAN 2 MEENA 3 RANI 4 PRIYA 5 SAMSON 6 VIJAY 7 MEENAKSHI 8 SETHU @ RAJASEKAR ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 2 TO 7 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KULITHALAI, KARUR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.7 OF 2013 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.CHELLAPANDIAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANDASAMY Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- There are totally eight accused in this case. The petitioners, who are arrayed as A-2 to A-7, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 506(i) and 498-A of I.P.C in Crime No.7 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the de facto complainant and the first accused was solemnised on 12.12.

2010 and right from the date of marriage, she has been subjected to harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of her husband and her in-laws. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first accused has already filed H.M.O.P.No.238 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul praying for divorce and notice was served on the de facto complainant and as a counter-blast, the present false complaint came to be lodged and except the fact that they are closely related to the first accused, they are nothing to do with the alleged commission of offences. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) would submit that investigation is pending.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(crl. Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record.

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

6.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kuzhithalai 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 as and when required. 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/- 19/12/2013 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KUZHITHURAI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULITHALAI, KARUR DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22961 of 2013 Date :19/12/2013 2P/5C RPB 27.12.2013 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/