Anthony Sesuraja v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL OP(MD) No.22920 of 2013 1 ANTHONY SESURAJA 2 BOWLIN 3 ROMIN 4 JENIL 5 PRIYA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 to 5 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMENS POLICE STATION, VALLIYOOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.63/2013 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.V.SASIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.P.KANDASAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The first petitioner is the husband and other petitioners are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A and 506(i) of I.P.C in Crime No.63 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.According to the de-facto complainant, the marriage between her and the first petitioner/first accused was solemnised on 14.12.2010 and right from the date of marriage, she has been subjected to harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of her husband and her in-laws.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the de-facto complainant, on an earlier occasion, filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act before the Jurisdictional Magistrate's Court and it was ordered and the first petitioner in compliance of the said order, has also paid maintenance to the defacto complainant and subsequently he filed I.D.O.P.No.37 of 2012 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli for divorce and as a counter-blast, the present false complaint came to be lodged. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant investigation is being conducted.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(crl. Side) appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge them on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, and on 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 first petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required and the other petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.
7. 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/- 19/12/2013 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMENS POLICE STATION, VALLIYOOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.V.SASIKUMAR Advocate SR.No.63542
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.22920 of 2013 Date :19/12/2013 msm 20.12.2013 p2/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/