BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twelfth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13628 of 2011 1 K.KARTHICK 2 KASI RAJAN 3 TAMILARASI 4 VIJAYALAKSHMI 5 DHANASEKARAN 6 SRIDHAR 7 RAMAR 8 THAMILARASAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION., TALLAKULAM, MADURAI., ( CRIME NO.22 OF 2011) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.R.JEYAPALAM Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehdning arrest , the petitioners, in Crime No.22 of 2011 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offenes punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have come forward with this Petition seeking for anticipatory bail. 2.THe first petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant and others are close reltaives of the first petitioner. According to the case of the prosecution, the marriage between the de-facto complainant and the first petitioner was solemnised on 17.01.2010 and thereafter there arose sum dispute between the husband and wife, which is resulted in separation also. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.It is the further case of the prosecution that the de- facto complainant was harassed for dowry, ill-treated and her properties have also been retained by the accused. With all these allegations, the complaint was preferred on 23.05.2011, based on which, the present case has been registered. 4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to some domestic quarral, the de-facto complainant deserted the first petitioner. On a complaint preferred at All Woman Police Station, Tallakulam, enquiry was held on 28.05.2011. The learned counsel has produced a copy of the said statement which was reduced into writing evidencing the compromise reached between the parties. According to the learned counsel, in the said enquiry held on 28.05.2011, all the jewels belonging to the de- facto complainant were returned by the petitioner. Though the first accused is willing to live with the de-facto complainant, she has deserted on her own and therefore, the petitiones can not blamed in any manner. 5.I have considered the above submissions. 6.A perusal of the compromise memo, dated 28.05.2011, produced by way of typed set of papers would show that all the jewels were returned by the first petitioners and there is also another averment in the petition, wherein the de-facto complainant has stated that though her husband is willing to live with her, she is not willing to live with him on her own accord. 7.In such view of the matter, I find prima facie materials in favour of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. 8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judcial Magistrate No.2, Madurai, 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.1,2,5,6,7 and 8, shall appear before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 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. sd/- 12/10/2011 / 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.2 MADURAI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION., TALLAKULAM, MADURAI., +1. CC to M/S. T.R.JEYAPALAM Advocate SR.No.35371 rl/6c – 13.10.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13628 of 2011 Date :12/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/