BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15076 of 2011 1. MUTHU NAICKER 2. PARVATHI 3. RAJA 4. VIJAYAKUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.2 to 4 & 6 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VADAMADRUAI, DINDIGUL DT CR NO. 25/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.JOEL PAUL ANTONY Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under sections 498(A), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPHW Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime NO.25 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.A.Joel Pau Anotny, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor apperaing for the state. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners are in-laws and they have been implicated in this case on the allegation that they said to have demanded dowry and alleged to have cruelly treated the defacto complainant. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they did not committed any crime as stated in the complaint. He would also submit in his argument that they are also having permanent residence and therefore, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioner have been implicated on the allegation of demand of dowry and they are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and suitable conditions may be pleased in the event of grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court could understand that the main accusation is only against the first petitioner and these petitioners are none other than the in-laws of the defacto complainant and they were not in any way connected with the alleged offence. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on abil, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on each of them executing 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 No.III, Dindigul and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 21/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III DINDIGUL 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VADAMADRUAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. A.JOEL PAUL ANTONY Advocate SR.No.40605 GH : 24.11.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15076 of 2011 Date :21/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/