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.15800 of 2011 1. JEGANATHAN 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI 3. PANDIYARAJAN 4. SHANKAR 5. DHARANI : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THEPPAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI. CRIME NO.1472 OF 2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN 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 Section 174 Cr.P.C. altered into Sections 306 and 498(A) I.P.C., in Crime No.1472 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.R.Gandhi, 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 father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband of sister-in-law and sister-in-law of the defacto complainant and they are incriminated in the F.I.R. on the complaint given by the mother of the deceased person. He would further submit that the petitioners have not committed in the alleged offence of 306 I.P.C. and they have not at all committed any offence to lead the deceased woman to commit suicide. He would further submit that all the petitioners are in-laws and relatives and the parents-in-law are sufficiently aged persons and they have no overt act against the deceased in the alleged occurrence. He would also submit that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions likely to be imposed by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the dispute was in between the husband and wife viz, the first accused of the deceased woman and suspicion was that the deceased woman had not at all attained puberty and she had undergone medical test and got the certificate to the effect that she is alright. However, the said certificate was suddenly snatched away by the husband and therefore, the said deceased woman had consumed poison. He would further submit that the investigation is offing and if for any reason, the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, suitable conditions may be imposed for the secured presence for the continuance of investigation and to do further interrogation. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could understand that the F.I.R. has been registered on the complaint given by the mother of the deceased woman. The deceased woman had consumed poison and due to that she died. The case is under investigation. 6. On a careful perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the R.D.O report, I could see that the medical examination report on the deceased woman was snatched away by her husband and on 25.11.2011, the deceased woman went to see her husband and when she returned on 26.11.2011 by 8.30 a.m. she was found to have in an unconscious state after consuming the poison. Admittedly, the investigation is still pending. The real facts will be found at the time of conclusion of investigation. However, the petitioners are in-laws and relatives and they have also permanent residence, therefore, I could see that the petitioners could have been given anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, No.I, Madurai and on executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 3 to 5 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. As the petitioners 1 and 2 are aged persons, they shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8. 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/- 16/12/2011 / 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 NO.1, MADURAI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THEPPAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate SR.No.44409 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15800 of 2011 Date :16/12/2011 NSV/20.12.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/