BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15393 of 2011 1 RIYAZUDEEN 2 SIDDIQ ALI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SETHUBAVACHATRAM POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT CR NO. 187/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, 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 offences under Sections 509 read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.187 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent State. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed the said offence. He would further submit that the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. is only bailable, however, purposely, the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act has been included to have it as non bailable one. He would further submit that they will not leave from the clutches of law and they are ready to abide any conditions likely to be imposed on them. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioners have been arrayed as A1 and A2 and they have contacted the defacto complainant through cell phone and uttered her with filthy words and vulgar language and the investigation is still pending and if for any reasons, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, suitable conditions may be imposed against the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Considering the submissions made on either side, I could see that the petitioners are ranked as A1 and A2 and they are said to have contacted the defacto complainant through cell phone, by knowing her number somehow or other and were conveying vulgar, abusive and filthy language, even though, she had changed four sim cards. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner would not contact the defacto complainant. 7.Recording the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners would not contact the defacto complainant through her cell phone and utter any words, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with stringent conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, 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 Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and on further condition that the petitioners should appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further order and apart from that, they should not indulge in similar offences either with the defacto complainant or with any other persons. Sd/- 25/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATTUKKOTTAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SETHUBAVACHATRAM POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DT 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate SR.No.41505 ssk/25.11.2011 /5c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15393 of 2011 Date :25/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/