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) Nos.15152 & 15153 of 2011 K.REGINA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.4 IN CRL.OP.15152/11 1 V.SELVAPANDY 2 R.AMARAVATHY 3 A.SHANTHI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 IN CRL.OP.15153/11 Vs STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, USILAMPATTI TOWN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.576 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH CASES For Petitioner : M/S. THAMIZHARASAN Advocate in Crl.O.P.No. 15152/2011 For Petitioner : Mr.M.M.E.PHILLIPS, Advocate in Crl.O.P.No. 15153/2011 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 in both the petitions apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A) read with 494 and 109 of IPC in Crime No.576 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. They have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.Thamizharasan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15152 of 2011 and Mr.M.M.E.Phillips, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15153 of 2011 and also Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in both the petitions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15152 of 2011 would submit in his argument that the petitioner is an unmarried woman and she is working in Karur as a Government teacher and unnecessarily some false particulars have been given against her in the complaint given by the de-facto complainant and she was working with the first accused when she was temporarily posted at Theni and except that period of working along with the first accused, there is no other relation with the first accused as alleged in the complaint. He would further submit in his argument that the allegations made in the complaint are affecting the reputation of the petitioner and she is unnecessarily dragged to the disputes had by the de-facto complainant with the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused. Since there is no nexus for the petitioner with the complaint allegations, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15153 of 2011 would submit in his argument that the first petitioner is ranked as A1 and the other petitioners are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the de-facto complainant and they were married on 09.06.1991 and have a male child. He would further submit that the de-facto complainant and the first accused had some disputes in between them and therefore, the first petitioner had filed an I.D.O.P., before the learned Principal District Judge, Srivilliputhur for restitution of conjugal rights in I.D.O.P.No. 2 of 2011 and in the said case, the first petitioner and the de-facto complainant had compromised and they have joined together and subsequently, the present dispute has erupted and the de-facto complainant has wantonly given this false complaint in order to harass the first petitioner. He would further submit in his argument that the 1st petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 5153 of 2011 and the petitioner in crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15152 of 2011, working as Government teachers and the petitions have got permanent root in the society and therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the marriage in between the first accused and the de-facto complainant took place on 09.06.1991 and the first accused had contracted the second marriage while the de-facto complainant is alive, on 17.08.2010 and the said offence was committed with the help of the fourth accused. On 11.09.2011, the said offence has been committed against the de-facto complainant and immediately the petitioner has given a complaint on 27.09.2011. He would further submit in his argument that the investigation is offing and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, suitable conditions may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I could see that the first petitioner/first accused and the de-facto complainant were married on 09.06.1991 and they have a boy child. I could see that the dispute emanated in between them, which resulted in filing of I.D.O.P.No. 2 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Srivillilputhur and in that case, both parties have compromised the dispute and they were living together and the petition was allowed as prayed for and an order has been passed to that effect by the learned Principal District Judge, on 09.06.2011. If really subsequently there was marriage held in between the first accused and the fourth accused, the said fact would have been mentioned earlier and it would not lead any compromise in between the parties. However, the said fact has to be gone into by the respondent police at the time of investigation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to all the petitioners, of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned on each 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 (i) Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai (petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15152/2011) and (ii) Judicial Magistarte No.I, Usilampatti (petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 15153/2011), and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. 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 NO.I, MADURAI. 2. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, USILAMPATTI. 3. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI. 4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, USILAMPATTI TOWN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 5. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. + 1 CC to M/S. THAMIZHARASAN Advocate SR.No.41467 + 1 cc to M/S.SELVI B.C.CATHERINE EVI, Advocate, SR No.41468 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD)Nos.15152 & 15153/2011 Date :25/11/2011 RJ/28.11.11 3p/8c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/