Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/18054/2017 of SILAMPARASAN Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 28 December 2017
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.18054 of 2017 1 SILAMPARASAN 2 MANGANI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 & 2 Vs 1 THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR
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 Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN
CRL OP(MD) No.18054 of 2017
1 SILAMPARASAN
2 MANGANI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 & 2
Vs
1 THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KODAIKANAL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2017
2 REJINA MARY ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT
For Petitioners : M/S.G.MUTHUMANI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections498(A) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.not known of 2017 on the fileof the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The case of the prosecution is that due to demand ofadditional dowry, the petitioners have harassed the de factocomplainant and threatened her with dire consequences.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionersthat the petitioners are innocent persons and they have notcommitted any offence and prays for anticipatory bail in favour ofthe petitioners.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted thatcharge sheet has not been filed in this case.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I aminclined to grant interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Accordingly, interim anticipatory bail is granted till 29.01.2018 inhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period offifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court,Kodaikanal, Dindigul District on condition that the petitionersshall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousandonly) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction ofthe respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest orto the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and onfurther condition that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Policeas and when required.
[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial.
[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial.
[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditionshave been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by thelearned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
7. Notice to the 2nd respondent returnable by 29.01.2018 andprivate notice is also permitted. The petitioner is directed totake private notice to the 2nd respondent by Speed Post on or before02.01.2018 and file the proof of service into the Registry on orbefore 19.01.2018. After completion of service, Registry isdirected to verify as to whether any counsel has entered appearancefor the 2nd respondent and if so, print the name of the counsel;else print the name of the 2nd respondent in the cause list. If thepetitioner failed to file proof of service, this Criminal Originalpetition stands dismissed automatically.
The respondent Police is directed to conduct enquiry on day today basis and it shall not be adjourned beyond three working days atany point of time and the party shall appear for the enquiry. sd/- 28/12/2017
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT MUNSIF, KODAIKANAL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KODAIKANAL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :28/12/2017
MKV-PM-PN-SAR 3/3.1.2018/2P-5C