1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eleventh day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.8299 of 2011 1.PARAMESWARI 2.SATHISHKUMAR 3.GANESAN 4.NARAYANAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5 K.SOWNDARIYA ... INTERVENER Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI. CR.NO. 11/2011. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S. DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : MR. D.VENKATESH, 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 offences under Sections 493, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC., and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, in Crime NO.11 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of prosecution, the first accused by name Pradeepkumar has fallen in love with the de-facto complainant. Subsequently, according to the case, he married her also. Thereafter, when the de-facto complainant insisted the first accused to register the marriage, he declined. Thereafter, dispute arose between them. On these allegations, the present case has been registered. So far as the petitioners are concerned, according to the case, they scolded the de-facto complainant complainant not approving the marriage. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would refute all these allegations. 4.But the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor viz., the de- facto complainant would submit that subsequent to the release of the first accused on bail, an attempt was made to tamper with the witnesses. Therefore according to him, the petitioners are not entitled to get anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.I have considered the above submissions. 6.Even according to the case of prosecution, there is no prima facie allegation that the petitioners had any role to play in the commission of alleged offence under Section 493 IPC., by the first accused. The only allegation attributed against the petitioners is that they scolded the de- facto complainant. 7.Having regard to the nature of allegation made against the petitioners and all other attendant circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, but with conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, on executing 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners 2 to 4 shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks, without fail. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 11/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARAIKUDI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate SR.No.35132 +1. CC to MR. D.VENKATESH, Advocate, SR.No. 35112 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8299 of 2011 Date :11/10/2011 TR :12.10.2011: 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/