1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Third day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9685 of 2011 1 KULANTHAI YESU 2 J.NAZARETH MARY 3 K.JEYARAMAN 4 IRUDAYA RAJ 5 A.PACKIA SELVI 6 CHRISTY LESINO MONISIYA 7 R.M.R.MATHIALAGAN 8 ERRANASAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 2 to 9 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL, CRIME NO.17/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.R.KANNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Addl.Public Prosecutor ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.A2 to A9 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406,498(A) and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.17 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the marriage between the de-facto complainant and the first accused was performed on 23.05.2010 and the de-facto complainant left from matrimonial home for delivery and she has not returned to matrimonial home but, however she has given a complaint on 17.05.2011. On the basis of the said de-facto complaint, the husband of the de-facto complainant, was arrested and remanded a judicial custody on 27.07.2011. The first petitioner/A2 is a father-in-law of the de-facto complainant; A3 is A1's brother's wife; A4 is a A1's brother; A5 is a A1's sister's husband; A6 is a A1's elder sister; A7 is a A1's younger sister; A8 is a Marriage organizer and A9 is a House owner and they are nothing to do with the commission of offence and hence, they are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 apprehending arrest and they seek for their enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners are joined together with and demanded seven sovereign of gold as well as demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and that because of torture, she left from matrimonial home. After delivery, she has not returned to matrimonial home. He fairly conceded that A9 is the owner of the house and hence he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Even though, a direction was given by this Court on 01.08.2011 to the Investigating Officer to appear before this Court, she is not present today. Hence, the Superintendent of Police,Dindigul, is directed to take proper action against the respondent herein/Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul. The same is to be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul. 5.Considering the rival submissions on both sides, it could be seen that the marriage was performed on 23.05.2010 and that she left from matrimonial home for delivery on 17.05.2011 and that she had not returned to the matrimonial home and however, gave a complaint on 25.07.2011. Already the case has been registered under Sections 406,498(A) and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.17 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and A1 was arrested and remanded in judicial custody and A8 and A9 are different persons viz., marriage organizer and house owner respectively. A2 is the the father-in-law of de-facto complainant and A6 is a elder sister of A1. Even though the petitioners were not arrested, they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Dindigul, and 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 03/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,DINDIGUL. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO: THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DINDIGUL. +1 CC to M/S. R.R.KANNAN Advocate SR.No.26033 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9685 of 2011 Date :03/08/2011 PA/08.08.2011/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/