BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eleventh day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9916 of 2011 1 PETCHIMUTHU 2 PETCHIAMMAL 3 KALAISELVAM 4 REVATHI 5 PANDIAMMAL ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 6 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SANKARANKOVIL, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.14/2011 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.SASIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent :Mr.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406 and 506(i) I.P.C., and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 14 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and the marriage has been performed in the year 2008 and the de-facto complainant had illicit intimacy with a third party and that has been questioned by the petitioners and they also gave a complaint and thereafter they are willing to approach the family Court to workout their remedy, aggrieved by the same, a complaint has been given by the de-facto complainant and the investigation is considerably over and they apprehend for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 100 sovereign of gold jewels from the de-facto complainant as dowry and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the marriage between the de-facto complainant and the first petitioner has been performed in the year 2008 and the first accused is the husband of the de-facto complainant and the de-facto complainant had illicit intimacy with a third party and subsequently she left the matrimonial home and since, she is having illicit intimacy with a third party, the first petitioner gave a complaint and thereafter, withdraw the sane to workout their remedy before the appropriate forum and he filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.58 of 2011 before the Sub-Court, Sankarankovil under the provision of 13(1) (1a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the investigation is considerably over, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil 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 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. 5. 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/- 11/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SANKARANKOVIL 2.DO THORUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGG COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SANKARANKOVIL, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. V.SASIKUMAR Advocate SR.No.27223 rl/6c – 16.8.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9916 of 2011 Date :11/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/