1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15575 of 2011 1 SAMIDURAI 2 ESAKKIMUTHU 3 KULASEKARAM 4 MUTHUMARI :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TENKASI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CR.NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2011):RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.GNANAGURUNATHAN, 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 are arrayed as accused and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of the respondent-police. 2.Heard Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the first petitioner is the husband and the petitioners No.2 to 4 are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and the parents-in-law are aged person. He would further submit that the allegation made in the complaint against the petitioners are not correct and they have no connection whatsoever with the offence as lodged in the complaint, and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the matter is pending before the District Social Welfare Officer and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stringent condition may be imposed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I could see that the first petitioner is the husband and a serious allegation is made against him, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners No.2 to 4. Accordingly, the petitioners No.2 to 4 are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah and 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah and on further condition that the petitioners No.2 to 4 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners No.2 to 4 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.The petitioners No.2 to 4 shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. 7.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would express his willingness to withdraw the petition as against the first petitioner. Accordingly, the petition filed against the first petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn. sd/- 14/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah, Tirunelveli District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. RP/19.12.2011/2P/5C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15575 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/