BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16496 of 2011 1 NELLAIYAPPAN 2 KRISHNAN 3 MUTHULAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AMBASAMUTHIRAM, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.36 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.G.GOMATHI SANKAR 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 the accused and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 498(A) and 506(ii) I.P.C., r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act in Crime No.36 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2. Heard Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition in respect of the first petitioner herein and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 4. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the first petitioner. 5. Insofar as the second and third petitioners are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners 2 and 3 are innocent persons and they are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the de-facto complainant and they had nothing to do with the alleged crime. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the allegation as against the petitioners is that they demanded dowry from the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the investigation is pending. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioners and they are sufficiently aged persons, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3, but with conditions. 9. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 and 3 are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Thirunelveli and on each of them executing a 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 No.V, Thirunelveli District and on further condition that the petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 10. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 16/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, TIRUNELVELI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AMBASAMUTHIRAM, TIRUNELVELI. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.G.GOMATHI SANKAR, ADVOCATE SR.NO.44133. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16496 of 2011 Date :16/12/2011 2P/6C RPB : 19.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/