1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Saturday, the Twenty Ninth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14052 of 2011 VELAYUTHAM ... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED Vs THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AMBASAMUDRAM, IN CRIME NO.22/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.MAHARAJAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the first accused in crime NO.22 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for the offence under Sections 294(B), 323, 506 (ii), 406, 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioner has come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the marriage between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant took place on 31.01.2005 and from the day one of the marriage, the petitioner has been demanding a sum of rs.2,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant, as dowry and harassed her consequently. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the de-facto complainant did not like the marriage with the petitioner and because of that, she never co-operate with the petitioner to lead a happy marital life. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced a diary said to have been written by the de-facto complainant. Referring to the said diary, the learned counsel would submit that the de-facto complainant herself has mentioned in the diary that she never like the marriage with the petitioner and she did not like to live with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioner. The said diary in the hands of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been proved that of de-facto complainant. 4.However, for the present, going by the fact that the marriage took place in the year 2005 and the complaint was preferred in the year 2011 and going by the averments found in the diary, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but with conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, on executing a 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m for a period of eight weeks, without fail. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 29/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AMBASAMUDRAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI 3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AMBASAMUDRAM 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. V.MAHARAJAN Advocate SR.No.36997 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14052 of 2011 Date :29/10/2011 TR :31.10.2011: 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/