BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twelfth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.12649 of 2011 P. SARASWATHI ... PETITIONER/4th ACCUSED Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE COLACHEL POLICE STATION, CR NO. 81/2010 KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. J.JOHN JAYAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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, the petitioner, in Crime No.81 of 2010 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, has come up with this Petition seeking for anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was done to death by setting fire to her on 10.03.2010 by a total number of five accused persons. As per the F.I.R, the petitioner is one of the causes for the first accused to set fire on the deceased. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judicial dying declaration given by the deceased to the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.3, Nagercoil, wherein, the deceased has implicated only her husband. She has not stated anything about the petitioner. On this ground, he prayed for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would however oppose for granting anticipatory bail by stating that this matter needs further investigation. 5.I have considered the submissions made on both sides. 6.Perusal of the grounds would go to show that except the allegation that the petitioner has caused the first accused to set fire on the deceased, there is no other overt act attributed at all. Above all in the dying declaration, the deceased has stated nothing about the petitioner. She has only stated that her husband was the main cause. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.In view of the above facts and circumstances, since there is no prima facie case as of now for the purpose of denying anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with the following conditions: 8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Principal District Muncif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, on 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 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 petitioner shall report before the All Women Police Station, Kulachal every day for a period of four weeks. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. Sd/- 12/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERANIEL, KANYAKUMARI DT 2 THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KULACHAL, KANYAKUMARI DT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE COLACHEL POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DT 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. J.JOHN JAYAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.35414 ssk/14.10.2011 /6c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12649 of 2011 Date :12/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/