BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Eighth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15517 of 2011 1 JEBASTIN 2 KAVITHA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PARAMAKUDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CRIME NO.18/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.K.PATTURAJA Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) For Intervener : M/S.ARJUNAN, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.11.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(B), 494, 498(A), 506(II) I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.211 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. Heard Mr.S.K.Patturaja, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.G.Arjunan, learned counsel for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State. 3. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first petitioner is stated to have married the second petitioner, but there was no marriage solemnized with the second petitioner and she is only the friend of the 1st petitioner's sister. The first petitioner has filed the divorce petition against the defacto complainant and it was dismissed and against which, the first petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court and it is pending. He would further submit that he has not committed the offence of bigamy by marrying the second petitioner. He would also submit that the second petitioner is being a Government Servant and working as a Noon Meal Organizer and therefore, there is no question of absconding and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit in his argument that the first petitioner has married the second petitioner on 30.10.2011 and the said offence has been committed even during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the petitioners will flee from the clutches of law by going abroad and they are having passport and visa for some foreign countries. He would therefore, request the Court to dismiss the application. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the first petitioner is said to have married the second petitioner on 30.10.2011 and if document is available, he is ready to produce the said document. The petitioners are in custody from 16.11.2011 and the investigation is pending. He would request the Court if for any reason, the petitioners are granted with bail, suitable conditions may be imposed for the secured persons of the petitioners for interrogation. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the allegation made against the petitioners are that they have married illegally on 30.10.2011, when the defacto complainant was already married by the first petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there is a divorce proceedings pending before this Court in the form of appeal and it is pending. Even though, the petitioners have asked for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, it was not granted because they are likely to flee to foreign country, if bail has been granted. However, there was no proof, regarding the second marriage, has been produced before the learned Sessions Judge, however, the petition was dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions made on either sides, I could see that the second petitioner being a Government Servant and there was divorce proceeding is pending between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant and I could see that a prima facie case is made out for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, but, with Stringent conditions. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing a separate 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 Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi and on further condition that the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and the second petitioner is concerned, she shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks. Both the petitioners are directed to surrender their passport at the time of furnishing sureties before the said Court, if they have already obtained. No passports are available for both of them, they are further directed to file a sworn affidavit before the learned Magistrate concerned. Sd/- 28/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PARAMAKUDI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PARAMAKUDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SUB JAIL, PARAMAKUDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DT 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT PRISON, RAMANATHAPURAM +1. CC to M/S. S.K.PATTURAJA Advocate SR.No.41620 +1. CC to M/S. G.ARJUNAN Advocate SR.No.41677 ssk/28.11.2011 /8c -3p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15517 of 2011 Date :28/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/