BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eleventh day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14561 of 2011 1 MEENAL 2 ALAGAMMAI 3 DEVI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3 TO 5 Vs STTE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.23/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest , the petitioners in Crime No.23 of 2011 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Women Harassment Act, have come forward with this Petition seeking for anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the first petitioner is the brother's wife of the first accused and the second petitioner is mother-in-law and the third petitioner is sister of the first petitioner. The first accused is the husband of the de-facto complainant. The marriage between them was solemnised on 31.10.2008. It is alleged that after the marriage, the first accused harassed the de-facto complainant demanding dowry. So far as these petitioners are concerned, it is stated that they have also joined hands with the first accused to demand dowry and to harass the de-facto complainant. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.I have considered the above submissions. 5.As of now, there are no specific overt act against these petitioners and there are only vague allegations and apart from that the petitioners are women, more particularly, the second petitioner is aged more than 65 years and the accused Nos.l and 2 have already been arrested. 6.Having regard to the above fact, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureies each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the saitisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 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/- 11/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARAIKUDI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate SR.No.39017 rl/6c – 12.11.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14561 of 2011 Date :11/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/