1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Friday, the Sixteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16131 of 2011 1 BALASUBRAMANIAN 2 VELUKONAR :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1 & 3 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI CITY. (CR.NO.24 OF 2008) :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. N.MOHIDEEN BASHA, Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 376, 417, 294 (b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.24 of 2008 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners are ranked as A1 and A3. The second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner and he is no way connected with the alleged offence said to have been made by the first petitioner/first accused against the defacto complainant. He would further submit in his argument that the allegations in the F.I.R. are bald and the said occurrence is said to have been taken place on 26.08.2008, but the complaint was given as early as on 08.11.2008 without explanation or any delay. The complaint has been given by the defacto complainant and there is no connection in between the petitioner and defacato complainant and therefore, he would request the Court to grant anticipatory to the petitioners. However, he would submit that if for any reason, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner, he would withdraw this petition on behalf of the first petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that a case has been registered in Crime No.24 of 2008 and it is still pending investigation. As regards the first petitioner is concerned, his custody for interrogation may require. If for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner, suitable conditions may be imposed. 5.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the claim for anticipatory for the first petitioner has been withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners and therefore, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the first petitioner. 6.As regards the second petitioner, the alleged offence said to have been committed are only under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. Therefore, I could see that there is a prima case for grant of anticipatory bail to the second petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner with certain conditions. 7.Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli and 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the second petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The second petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8.The second petitioner 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/- 16/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:II, Tirunelveli. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Tirunelveli City. +1. CC to M/S. N.MOHIDEEN BASHA Advocate SR.No.44536. RP/21.12.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16131 of 2011 Date :16/12/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/