BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventh day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.11768 of 2011 1 RAJA SULOCHANA 2 SARANYA 3 RAMASAMY UTHAMANDAR ...PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 2,7,8 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION PAPANASAM THANJAVUR DISTRICT CRIME NO.6/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R. SINGGARAVELAN Advocate For Respondent : M.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A2, A7 and A8 and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 120(B), 468, 494 and 506(ii) I.P.C and under Sections 4&5 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.6 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, 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 has committed the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. by marrying the first accued and the petitioners 2 and 3 have arranged for the said second marriage. He would further submit in his argument that the first petitioner was not married to the first accused and only the petitioners 2 and 3 have arranged the said marriage. He would further submit in his argument that they are the close relatives of the first accused and they have not participated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ any offence as alleged in the complaint. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners 1 and 2 are womenfolk and the third petitioner is their father and he is an aged person and they have got permanent residence and they will not abscond from the clutches of law and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that on the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the investigation is being carried on and as per the investigation, the first petitioner is said to have married the first accused and the petitioners 2 and 3 have arranged the said marriage and if for 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.COnsidering the facts and circusmtances of the case, I could see that there is no implication of the petitioners as per the allegation made in the complaint. However, investigation is offing and on completion of the investigation, the criminality of the allegations made against the petitioners could be concluded. In the said circumstances. I could see that the petitioners are having prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail in in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, Thanjavur District 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 Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, Thanjavur District and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditon stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 6.The petitioners shall appear before the Magitrate concerned within a period of 15 days failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 07/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PAPANASAM THANJAVUR DISTRICT 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THANJAVUR DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION PAPANASAM THANJAVUR DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S.R. SINGGARAVELAN Advocate SR.No.42785 rl/6c – 12.12.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11768 of 2011 Date :07/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/