1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14709 of 2011 1 KANNAN 2 MEENAL ACHI 3 SUBRAMANIYAN CHETTIYAR :PETITIONERS / ACCUSEDS NOS.1 TO 3 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUMAYAM, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.4 OF 2007 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. B.JAMEELARASU, Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, 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 offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 of IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.4 of 2007, on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.B.Jameelarasu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the complaint has been given during the subsistence of marriage in between the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant and thereafter there was a mutual understanding in between parties and they have compromised the disputes and they have also applied for divorce decree and accordingly, divorce decree was granted under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.O.P.No. 85 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai. However, the investigation has been done and the case has been continued and the charge sheet has also been filed and in the said circumstances, there cannot be any impediment for this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners since the matter has been settled between the parties. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the marriage took place in between the parties on 16.03.2006 and 25 sovereigns of gold jewels and 1 kgs of silver articles and a sum of Rs.40,000/- dowry along with one diamond stud has been presented to the de-facto complainant and the same were held by the first petitioner and thereafter also, they have demanded more dowry and therefore, the complaint has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 been lodged by the de-facto complainant and the case has been registered. He would also submit in his argument that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed and it is yet to be taken on file and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, suitable conditions may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I could understand that the complaint was in the year 2007 and the case has been registered in Crime No. 4 of 2007 and the investigation was being done from the said date. However, the first petitioner/first accused and the de-facto complainant have entered into a compromise and have filed H.M.O.P.No. 85 of 2008 for mutual divorce decree before the learned Sub Court, Pudukkottai and it has been stated that the divorce decree has been granted and before that all the articles, including other wooden steel were handedover to the de-facto complainant and the matter has been settled. In the said circumstances, the said settlement said to have been reached by the first petitioner has not been looked into and the charge sheet is filed and taken on file and the trial has been commenced. Since the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed and there is no necessity of further investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, of course, subject to certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on executing 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 Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. 7.The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 25/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam, Pudukottai District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Pudukottai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumayam, Pudukottai District. +1. CC to M/S. B.JAMEELARASU Advocate SR.No.41671. RP/29.11.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14709 of 2011 Date :25/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/