BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14942 of 2011 1 SUBRAMANIAN 2 KARUPPAIAH @ VAIRAVAN 3 ANDATHAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. CR.NO. 3/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.K.ELIL SELVI ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.C.DURAIPANDIAN GOVT. ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) PETITION FOR BAIL UNDER SEC. 439 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioners were arrested on 04.11.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417, 376, 29(b), 506(ii) and 498(A) of I.P.C., in Crime No.3 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. 2.Heard M/s.K.Elil Selvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.C.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners has made an endorsement not pressing this petition for the present in so far as the first petitioner is concerned. 4.In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner. 5.In respect of the other petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners 2 and 3 are in-laws and they have been implicated in this case on the allegation that they said to have demanded dowry and alleged to have carefully treated the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners 2 & 3 have been falsely implicated in this case. 6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioners 2 & 3 have been implicated on the allegation of demand of dowry and they are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court could understand that the main accusation is only against the first petitioner and the second petitioner is none other than the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and they were in judicial custody from 04.11.2011 and they were not in any way connected with the alleged offence. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail in favour of the second and third petitioners. Accordingly, the second and third petitioners are directed to be released on bail on each of them 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai, and on further condition that the petitioners 2 & 3 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. sd/- 18/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE No.I, SIVAGANGAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI. 3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, THIRUPATHUR. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, TRICHY. 6 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.K.ELIL SELVI ADVOCATE SR.NO.40434. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14942 of 2011 Date :18/11/2011 2P/8C RPB : 18.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/