1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11651 of 2011 1 PALANICHAMY 2 SIVATHAMANI 3 PANCHAVARNAM 4 KALIAMMAL 5 NEHRU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VADAMADURAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.21/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.RAHUL Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Addl.Public Prosecutor ( Crl. Side) 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 498(A), 342, 406 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.21 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 marriage between the defacto complainant and A1 has been performed on 12.12.2010 and A1 was already arrested and enlarged on bail. He further submitted that 1st and 2nd petitioners are the parents-in-law and 3rd and 4th petitioners are the sisters-in-law and 5th petitioner is the husband of the 4th petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons 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 petitioners along with A1 have demanded 10 sovereigns of gold and also torture the defacto complainant and hence, a case has been registered against them. He further submitted that A1/husband of the defacto complainant was already arrested and enlarged on bail and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 investigation going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the marriage between the defacto complainant and A1 has been performed on 12.12.2010 and the husband of the defaco complainant/A1 was already arrested and enlarged on bail and the petitioners are only in-laws of the defacto complainant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham 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 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. 6. The petitioners shall appear before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham 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/- 05/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NATHAM. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,VADAMADURAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. A.RAHUL Advocate SR.No.29769 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11651 of 2011 Date :05/09/2011 PA/07.09.2011/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/