1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twentieth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13920 of 2011 1.PUNNIYAMOORTHY 2.JANAKIRAMAN 3.DURAI @ PADMANABHAN 4.SUSEELA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3 TO 6 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANJAVUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR CR NO. 564/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.THIRUVADIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : MR. S.DEENADHAYALAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offences under Sections 379, 457, 380, 294(b), 447, 452, 493, 506(ii) and 307 IPC in Crime No.564 of 2011, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the first accused is the wife of the de-facto complainant. The marriage between them was solemnised in the year 2003. They have got a child also. While so, the first accused eloped with the second accused and married him in Chennai in the year 2011. The first accused has also taken away the jewels belonging to her husband, namely, the de-facto complainant is the allegation. Subsequently, these accused joined hands with the accused 1 and 2 and criminally intimidated the de-facto complainant. With these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that to attract Section 307 IPC, there is nothing on record. He would further submit that neither there was any attack nor there is any injury. He would further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 submit that thee petitioners have got nothing to do with the alleged marriage between A1 and A2. 4.The learned counsel Mr.S.Deenadayalan, intervened in this matter on the instruction of the de-facto complainant as intervenor. He would submit that these allegations are true and as a matter of fact the de-facto complainant was prevented from even giving the complaint. 5.As of now, there are no materials to attract Section 307 IPC and in respect of theft said to have been committee by the first accused. There is no specific overt act as against these petitioners. Having regard to all the above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners but with conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 1 to 3 shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. The fourth respondent shall report before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 20/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, THANJAVUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR AT KUMBAKONAM 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THANJAVUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. A.THIRUVADIKUMAR Advocate SR.No.36400 +1. CC to M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate SR.No.36366 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13920 of 2011 Date :20/10/2011 TR :20.10.2011: 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/