BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Sixth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELU CRL OP(MD) No.11560 of 2011 1 VANNI RAJA 2 PERUMAL NAICKER 3 PAPA ...PETITIONERS/UNKNOWN ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ARUPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT MARILAKSHMI . ..INERVENOR For Petitioner : M/S. A.BASKARAN Advocate For Respondent :Mr.A.RAMAR,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S.EDDY EMBBOSS, Advocate 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 506(i) and 498(A) I.P.C and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.16 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as far as the first petitioner is concerned he is not pressing and he has also made an endorsement to that effect and hence, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is the husband and the second and third petitioners are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and a false case has been foisted against them and the investigation is considerably over and they apprehend for arrest and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that he has no objection to grant anticipatory bail for the second and third petitioners only. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the second and third petitioners are only in-laws of the de-facto complainant and the investigation is pending and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 6.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the first petitioner is the husband and the second and third petitioners are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and the investigation is considerably over, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 26/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ARUPPUKOTTAI 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ARUPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISRICT +1. CC to M/S. A.BASKARAN Advocate SR.No.33075 +One Cc to M/s.EDDY & EMBBOSS, Advocate, SR.No.33229 rl/7c – 29.9.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11560 of 2011 Date :26/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/