BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16305 of 2011 1 NAGOOR KANI 2 GANDHI 3 MARIYAMMAL 4 PANCHARAJA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP. BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUCHULLI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.54/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.A.BASKARAN 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 are arrayed as accused and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences punishable under Section 306 IPC, in Crime No.54 of 2011, on the file of the respondent-police. 2.Heard Mr.A.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the first petitioner is the husband and the petitioners No.2 t 4 are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the allegation made in the complaint against the petitioners are not correct and they have no connection whatsoever with the offence as lodged in the complaint, and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that as per the R.D.O. report, the defacto complainant's daughter namely Munishwari had fallen in love with the first petitioner and the families were arranged their marriage and offered 4 sovereign of gold to her daughter and if four any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stringent condition may be imposed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 5.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would express his willingness to withdraw the petition as against the petitioners Nos.1 to 3. Accordingly, the petition filed against the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed as withdrawn. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I could see that the first petitioner is the husband and petitioners 2 & 3 are parents in law of defacto complainant and serious allegations are made against them, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.4 only. Accordingly, the petitioner No.4 is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and 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 Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai and on further condition that the petitioner No.4 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner NO.4 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.The petitioner No.4 shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 14/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARUPPUKOTTAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SRIVILLIPUTHUR AT VIRUDHUNAGAR. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULLI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC TO M/S. A.BASKARAN ADVOCATE SR.NO.43717. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16305 of 2011 Date :14/12/2011 2P/6C RPB : 16.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/