1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Nineteenth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10809 of 2011 1.MUTHUMANI 2.MUTHAMMAL 3.MARIESWARAI 4.RAMESH KUMAR @ RAMESH 5.BALAMURUGAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR. ( CR.NO.10 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.MURUGAPPAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 C.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 498(A(, 406 and 506(i) of IPC., in Crime NO.10 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents-in-law and the third petitioner is the sister-in-law and the petitioners 4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law of the de- facto complainant. He would further submit that the marriage between the first accused and the de-facto complainant has been performed in the year 2003, due to the lawful wedlock, one child was born, now they are living separately. He would further submit that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the marriage between the first accused and the de-facto complainant has been performed in the year 2003, due to the lawful wedlock, one chidl was born He would further submit that the father of the de-facto complainant is a retired police man and the accused were demanding retirement benefit of the de-facto complainant's father and made criminal intimidation. He would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 further submit that the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and perusal of the ration card, which was issued in the year 2005, shows that only the names of the first accused and the de-facto complainant alone mentioned. 5.Consideirng the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that the marriage between the first accused and the de- facto complainant has bee performed in the year 2003 and ow they are living separately and the petitioners are only in-laws, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 6.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 Court No.II, Virudhunagar and on 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. The third petitioner shall appear before the Court concerned daily at 5.30 p.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/- 19/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, VIRUDHUNAGAR 2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR. 4.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.MURUGAPPAN Advocate SR.No.28401 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10809 of 2011 Date :19/08/2011 TR : 22.08.2011: 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/