BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twelfth day of April Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.4806 of 2011 1. T. MARIMUTHU 2. M. THIRUMALAI 3. T. CHANDRALAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.S.BAGHATH SINGH Advocate For Respondent : MR.L.MURUGAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 (ii), 294(b) I.P.C., and Section 4 of TNPHW Act, in Crime No.5 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not pressing the application for petitioner No.1. He further submitted that the petitioners 2 and 3 who are accused Nos.2 and 3 are in-laws of the de-facto complainant and the parents of the first petitioner and the allegations are made only against the first petitioner and prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3. 3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first petitioner has filed HMOP No.227 of 2010, for divorce on the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputtur and in that the de-facto complainant filed counter wherein she made the allegation only against the first petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioners demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and 20 sovereign of gold jewels and ill-treated the de-facto complainant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.I have gone through the FIR and the counter filed by the de-facto complainant in the HMOP No.227 of 2010 and in the counter, allegations are made only against the first petitioner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 and 3 are directed to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on 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 No.II, Dindigul, and on further condition that the petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7. The petitioners 2 and 3 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/- 12/04/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -II, DINDIGUL. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC TO M/S. P.S.BAGHATH SINGH ADVOCATE SR.NO.13757 SR : 19.04.2011 : 2p/6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4806 of 2011 Date :12/04/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/