BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12648 of 2011 1. C. MARIAPPAN 2. M. MUTHULAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAKKADU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CR NO. 261/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D.VENKATESH Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 323 I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.261 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that because of family dispute, the brother's wife of the first petitioner gave a false complaint against the petitioners and the case has been registered under Sections 294(b) and 323 I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.261 of 2011. He further submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 18.09.2011 and the injured has treated in O.P. and the investigation is considerably over, and hence, they prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit that the first petitioner is the husband; the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner, the first petitioner's brother's wife is the de-facto complainant because of the family dispute the case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 294(b) and 323 I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act; the occurrence took place on 18.09.2011 and the injured treated as O.P. Even though, the case has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered on 18.09.2011, the petitioners were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconding from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on there is appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri, and 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 report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 6. 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/- 28/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NANGUNERI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUNELVELI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAKKADU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.VENKATESH Advocate SR.No.33694 SR : 29.09.2011 : 2p/6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12648 of 2011 Date :28/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/