BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16146 of 2011 HAMLET ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE STATE REP. BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KUZHIDURAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.15/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.VEERANASAMY Advocate For Intervenor : M/S. C.K.M.APPAJI, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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 petitioner is arrayed as A-1 and he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 420 I.P.C and Sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.15 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Heard Mr.S.Veeranasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was withdrawn when the petitioner along with other accused came up with an application for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P(MD)No.14083 of 2011. Since the investigation was at preliminary stage at that time, this Court has come to the conclusion that the dispute regarding handing over the jewels belonging to the de-facto complainant cannot be decided at an earlier point of time. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is working as an Engineer at Kodimunai and he has got permanent residence and permanent root in the society and therefore, there is no question of absconding from the clutches of law. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition likely to be imposed by this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit in his argument that the petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and the jewels belonging to the de- facto complainant i.e., 84 sovereigns of gold is yet to be returned. Since the jewels are not returned by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot seek for anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ argument that the investigation is pending. He would further submit that the mediation was not materialised in between the parties and if for any reason, the petitioner is released on bail, suitable conditions may be imposed. 6. I have considered the above submissions. 7. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court could see that the main allegation made against the petitioner was to the effect that the petitioner has retained the jewels belonging to the de-facto complainant to the tune of 84 sovereigns of gold, which was entrusted with the petitioner. However, the said circumstances has been dealt with by this Court in the order dated 08.11.2011 in paragraph No.6 of that order. Accordingly, the said dispute regarding the handing over of jewels cannot be verified at this stage and therefore, the said dispute regarding the handing over and returning of jewels has to be dealt with in future either at the time of investigation or at the time of trial. It is seen that the major part of the investigation is completed. Since the petitioner has got permanent root in the society, he will not abscond from the clutches of law, if suitable condition is imposed. 8. Considering the above said facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 9.The petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 21/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KUZHITHURAI 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KUZHIDURAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. S.VEERANASAMY Advocate SR.No.44900 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16146 of 2011 SMA/22.12.2011/6C/2P Date :21/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/