BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty First day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13430 of 2011 1. P.S.PAULRAJ 2. G.PUSHPAM 3. P.JOB JEYAKUMAR : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 3 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HIGHWAYES POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL. CRIME NO.32 OF 2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.PARANTHAMAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDI Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- There are three petitioners and they have come forward with the present petition seeking for anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest, for alleged offences under Section 306 and later altered into 304(b) of I.P.C., in Crime No.32 of 2011. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has made an endorsement not pressing this petition for the present in so far as the third petitioner is concerned. 3. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is dismissed in respect of the third petitioner. 4. According to the case of the prosecution, due to dowry harassment made by her husband, viz., the third petitioner, the deceased committed suicide and the other petitioners are instigated the third petitioner with these allegations, the present petition has been filed. 5. In respect of the petitioners 1 and 2, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that they are aged people, who are the in- laws of the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that there are no allegations making out any offences against them and he also refute the above allegations. He would also submit that the third petitioner is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ working in Coimbatore and the deceased was also residing at Coimbatore and therefore, the petitioners 1 and 2 in no way connected to meet the deceased frequently. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case is pending investigation and there are allegations against these petitioners also. 7. Having regard to the fact that the allegations against these two petitioners are very vague in nature and having regard to the age of the two petitioners, and all other attending circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 alone. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 4 weeks. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. Sd/- 21/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, UTHAMAPALAYAM. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HIGHWAYES POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL. +1 CC to M/S. P.PARANTHAMAN Advocate SR.No.36628 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13430 of 2011 NSV/29.10.11/2P/6C Date :21/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/