BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16227 of 2011 1 LAKSHMANAN, 2 SHANMUGAVEL, 3 SUNDARI, 4 MUTHUMARI, 5 PANDI, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KELLAKARAI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT (CR.NO.8/2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT LAKSHMI ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.SUBASH BABU Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) For Intervener : M/S. R.JEGADEESWARAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A5 and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) I.P.C., in in Crime No.8 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.M.Subash Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal side) appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the first petitioner is the husband and the petitioners No.2 to 5 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant and the parents-in-law are aged person. He would further submit that the allegation made in the complaint against the petitioners are not correct and they have no connection whatsoever with the offence as lodged in the complaint. He would further submit that divorce https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application has been filed by the first petitioner against the petitioner and the same was pending. However, the first petitioner is likely to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance of his wife and child as per the decision reached by the panchayathar in the village and a false complaint has been given against the petitioners and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit in his argument that the first petitioner along with other petitioners have tortured the defacto complainant to bring a sum of Rs.1 lakh for the first petitioner to go abroad. However, the other petitioners have tortured the defacto complainant and she along with her son lived separately. He would further submit that the petitioners have also beaten the defacto complainant with broomstick and they have threatened her with aruval and therefore, there is not reason for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the first petitioner is the husband and the other petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stringent condition maybe imposed for the secured presence of the petitioners. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I could see that the first petitioner is the husband and a serious allegation is made against him and there are H.M.O.P and a divorce petitions pending in between the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first petitioner has paid Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance of his wife and child by the decision of the panchayatar in the village for which the learned counsel for the intervenor is disputing, however, all these things have to be gone into during the investigation. As regard as the in- laws are concerned, there is no serious allegation and they are also sufficiently aged persons, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners No.2 to 5. Accordingly, the petitioners No.2 to 5 are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram 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 Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram and on further condition that the petitioners No.2 to 5 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners No.2 to 5 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.The petitioners No.2 to 5 shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would express his willingness to withdraw the petition as against the first petitioner. Accordingly, the petition filed against the first petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- 13/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I RAMANATHAPURAM 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KELLAKARAI, RAMANATHAPURAM DT 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. M.SUBASH BABU Advocate SR.No.43497 +1. CC to M/S. R.JEGADEESWARAN Advocate SR.No.43397 ssk/14.12.2011 /7c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16227 of 2011 Date :13/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/