Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/24172/2016 of SATHEESH MOHAN, Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, on 29 December 2016
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of December Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R.MAHADEVAN CRL OP(MD) No.24172 of 2016 1 SATHEESH MOHAN, 2 AMARAVATHI, 3 SUBHA NANDHINI, ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of December Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr Justice R.MAHADEVAN
CRL OP(MD) No.24172 of 2016
1 SATHEESH MOHAN, 2 AMARAVATHI,
3 SUBHA NANDHINI, ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 3
Vs
STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KUZHITHURAI, KK DT. CR.NO.30 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANTS
For Petitioner : M/S.P.M.VISHNU VARTHANAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. P KANDASAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A-1 to A-3, in Crime No.30 of 2016on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 416,417, 294(b), 498(A), 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 4 of Tamil NaduProhibition of Harassment of Women Act & 3 (a) & (b) of Protection of Womenfrom Domestic Violence Act and Sections 3, 4, 6 of Dowry Prohibition Actand Section 34 of I.P.C and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learnedGovernment Advocate(Crl. Side) for the respondent/State.
3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for therespondent on instructions submitted that this is a case of matrimonialdispute and the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainantand others are the in-laws of the defacto complainant and the allegation isthat the petitioners demanded dowry from the defacto complainant andharassed her.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitionersare innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and alsohttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/considering the fact that this is a case of matrimonial dispute, this Courtis inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bailin the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Padmanabhapuram and on each of them executing a bond for a sumof Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on furthercondition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent policedaily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. The petitioners shall complywith the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate withina period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready,failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/-
29/12/2016
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,AWPS., KUZHITHURAI, KK DT. CR.NO.30 OF 2016
2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEPADMANABHAPURAM
3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRAEKANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL
4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSEUTORMADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI
+1. CC to M/S.P.M.VISHNU VARTHANAN Advocate SR.No.83677
RL PV S A R 230 12 20162P 6C ORDER IN
CRL OP(MD) No.24172 of 2016
Date :29/12/2016