BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11397 of 2011 1. RAJA SULOCHANA 2. SAROJA 3. SELVARAJ 4. MAHALAKSHMI 5. KALIAMMAL 6. SARANYA 7. RAMASAMY ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 7 -VS- THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PAPANASAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT (CRIME NO.6/2011) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.JOEL PAUL ANTONY, Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, 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 offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 120(b), 468, 494 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.6 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the husband of the defacto complainant has got married another girl, who is the first petitioner/A2. He further submitted that H.M.O.P. proceeding is pending against A1 and the defacto complainant and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the first petitioner/A2 has got married the first accused and even the marriage between the defacto complainant and A1 subsists as on date and the 6th and 7th petitioners are the sister and father of the first petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners 1, 6 and 7 and accordingly this petition is dismissed in respect of petitioners 1, 6 and 7. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Insofar as petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, they are only in-laws of the defacto complainant and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them with certain conditions. 6. Accordingly, petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, Thanjavur District and on executing a separate 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 petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7. The petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 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/- 29/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PAPANASAM. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENJAVUR. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PAPANASAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1CC TO M/S.A.JOEL PAUL ANTONY, ADVOCATE SR.29519 SR : 29.08.2011 : 2p/6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11397 OF 2011 Date :29/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/