BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Third day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9891 of 2011 1 SAMUEL SAHAYARAJ 2 AROCKIADOSS 3 KANIKKAI MARY ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3 Vs. STATEE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL. CR,.NO.22 OF 2011. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S. A.K.AZAGARSAMI Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- ` The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.22 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the marriage between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant was performed on 04.09.2008 and due to wedlock, one child was born to them. Because of difference of opinion, she left the matrimonial home in the year 2010 and hence, she gave a complaint and the case has been registered the matter as per the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and therefore, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and hence, he prays for their enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that already the first petitioner married and got divorce and that fact has not informed to the de-facto complainant. Before her marriage he would further submit that the first petitioner always in a drunken mood and assaulted the de-facto complainant and demanded dowry and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hence the case has been registered in Crime No. 22 of 2011 against the petitioners and the investigation is going on and he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also the fact that the marriage between the first petitioner and the de- facto complainant has been performed on 04.09.2008 and they have one child and due to misunderstanding the de-facto complainant left from the matrimonial home and the complaint is yet to be registered and hence, she invoked the petition under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and then only, the case has been registered. 5.Considering the fact that there is a matrimonial dispute, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, 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. 7. 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/- 03/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, DINDIGUL. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL +1. CC to M/S. A.K.AZAGARSAMI Advocate SR.No.25872 akm/05.08.11 /2p-6c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9891 of 2011 Date :03/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/