1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11197 of 2011 1.AMALRAJ 2.JEYAMANI 3.DAISY RANI 4.IRUDHAYAM 5.ANTHONY MUTHU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5 RANJITHAM ... INTERVENER Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KOVILPATTI, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. (CR.NO.8 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D.SRINIVASARAGAVAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : MR. V. SASIKUMAR, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.8 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have come forward with the present petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner has already been arrested and enlarged on bail and hence, this petition has become infructuous in respect of the first petitioner. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is dismissed as infructuous in respect of the first petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. He further submitted that the second and fifth petitioners are the parents-in-laws of the defacto complainant and third and fourth petitioners are the sisters-in-law of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the marriage between the defacto complainant and A1 has been performed on 21.06.2010 and the defacto complainant wants to live a separate family, the problem has been arisen and hence, she left the matrimonial home on February 2011 and gave a complaint on 01.05.2011. He further submitted that since the case has not been registered, she is invoking Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, a case has been registered. He further submitted that the first petitioner has already filed a petition for divorce, which is pending before the learned District Court, Thoothukudi. He further submitted that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 4. Refuting the same, the learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that A3 and A4 are causing troubles to the defacto complainant and A1 also causing troubles to the defacto complainant and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the first petitioner and others have demanded 50 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs.50,000/-as an additional dowry and since, it was not meet out by the defacto complainant, they have ill-treated her and hence, a case has been registered. He further submitted that the investigation is going on 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 marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant has been performed on 21.06.2010 and the second and fifth petitioners are the parents-in-law of the defacto complainant and the fourth and fifth petitioners are the sister of A1 and as per the version of the learned counsel for the intervenor that the sister-in-laws of the defacto complainant have caused hindrance to the life of the defacto complainant, however, she has not made any allegation against the parents- in-law and the defacto complainant wants to live a separate family, it was not considered by the others, a case has been registered by invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 5 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, 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 2, 3 and 5 shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The fourth petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily evening at 05.30 p.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6. The petitioners 2 to 5 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/- 30/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KOVILPATTI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TUTICORIN 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KOVILPATTI, TUTICORIN DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.SRINIVASARAGAVAN Advocate SR.No.34294 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11197 of 2011 Date :30/09/2011 TR :03.10.2011: 3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/