BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11733 of 2011 1 V.NAGA RAJAN 2 N.THAMILSELVI 3 N.MUTHUKAMACHI 4 N.KANNAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A2-A5 Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL TOWN DINDIGUL CR.NO. 25 OF 2011 (ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R. DEENADAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Government Advocate(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), 406 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., in Crime No.25 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 are arrayed as A2 to A5. He further submitted that A2 is the father-in-law, A3 is the mother-in-law, A4 is the sister-in-law, A5 is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the first accused has been performed on 22.01.2010. He further submitted that the defacto complainant came to know that the defacto complainant has eloped with another person twice and when, he questioned the same, the defacto complainant left the matrimonial home on 30.08.2011 and gave a false complaint against the petitioners as if, the petitioners along with the husband has demanded a dowry and A1 has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and hence, they have come forwarded with the present petition for anticipatory bail. 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that these petitioners along with A1 have demanded 10 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.1 Lakh from the defacto complainant. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further submitted that A5 has made a sexual assault and hence, the complaint has been given. He further submitted 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 on perusal of the records, it is seen that already the defacto complainant's father has given a complaint stating that his daughter Gowthami was missing and hence, a case has been registered in Crime No.508 of 2009 under Sections 366(A) I.P.C. and that fact has been known by A1 and on questioning the same, the defacto complainant left the matrimonial home on 30.08.2011 and given a complaint against the petitioners. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the fact that the husband/A1 of the defacto complainant, who was questioned the character of the defacto complainant, has already been arrested and released on bail and these petitioners are only in-laws and even though they were not arrested neither they interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, 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 No.II, Dindigul 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. 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/- 23/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, DINDIGUL 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTATE,DINDIGUL 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL TOWN, DINDIGUL 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.R. DEENADAYALAN Advocate SR.No.32850 ssk/29.09.2011 /6c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11733 of 2011 Date :23/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/