BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13670 of 2011 1 SINNARAJ CHETTIYAR 2 MARIYAMMAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHINNAMANUR POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT. ( CR.NO.507 OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT R.SUBRAMANIAN, .. PETITIONER/INTERVENER For Petitioner : M/S. A.K.MANICKAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDI, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) For Intervener : MR.S.SARAVANAKUMAR, 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 306 IPC in Crime No.507 of 2011, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the petitioners are the parents of the first accused. The petitioners are aged 73 and 70 years respectively. The marriage between the deceased and the first acused was celebrated in the year 2000. Thereafter, there arose matimonial dispute, which resulted in Divorce petition also. The divorce petition filed in New Delhi was subsequently transferred to Tamil Nadu. It is alleged that thereafter all the accused made a false propaganda that the deceased was mentally ill. Deprived over the same, the deceased committed suicide is the allegation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would deny all the above allegations. According to him, the petitioners are no way responsible of the death of the deceased. 4. The defacto complainant is represented by a counsel and he has come out with M.P.No.1 of 2011 seeking for intervening and the said petition is allowed. The learned counsel for the intervener would reiterate the above allegations and he would oppose the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the above submissions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Admittedly, there was a divorce proceedings filed in New Delhi and the same was transferred to Sub Court, Uthamapalayam. The deceased committed suicide in the year 2011. Though it is alleged that the deceased died due to some false propganda of these petitioners, in my considered opinion, it cannot be conclusively held that these accused had any animus to drive the woman to commit suicide. These petitioners are old people and the allegations against them are very vague. 7. Having regard to the nature of allegations and also the fact that the petitioners are aged, 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, Uthamapalayam, 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 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously. Sd/- 13/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE UTHAMAPALAYAM 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHINNAMANUR POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT. 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. A.K.MANICKAM Advocate SR.No.35619 +1. CC to M/S. R.SURIYANARAYANAN Advocate SR.No.35577 ssk/14.10.2011 /6c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13670 of 2011 Date :13/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/