BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.13168 of 2011 1 MAHARIBA 2 FATHIMA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TALLAKULAM,MADURAI CITY, CRIME NO.21 OF 2011. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. N.MADHAVA GOVINDAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) 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 the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.21 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have come forward with the present petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the parents of the first accused and the parents-in- law of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant has been performed on 25.02.2011 and because of the difference of opinion, she left the matrimonial home on 15.07.2011, however, she gave a complaint only on 22.09.2011. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that all the jewels given to the defacto complainant have been entrusted with A2, however, she was allowed to wear only six sovereigns of jewels instead of 60 sovereigns given. He further submitted that A1 was arrested and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances the case and also considering the fact that the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant has been performed on 25.02.2011 and as per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the version of the prosecution that the mother-in-law has not allowed the defacto complainant to wear 60 sovereigns of jewels, which was gifted at the time of her marriage, except this nothing has been mentioned in her complaint and the first petitioner was already arrested and enlarged on bail and the petitioners are only in-laws, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. 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.2, Madurai, and 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 Magistrate concerned 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. 6. 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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- 30/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II MADURAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTATE MADURAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TALLAKULAM, MADURAI CITY 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. N.MADHAVA GOVINDAN Advocate SR.No.34390 ssk/03.10.2011 /6c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13168 of 2011 Date :30/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/