Allowed

P. R Subbaiah v. the State Rep by

Madras HC16 Oct 2015CRL OP(MD)/17578/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners accused of dowry harassment and cruelty. The Court imposed standard conditions and directed appearance before the polling agency within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Metric petitioners released on bail and ordered to execute a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and appear before the police and Magistrate as required.

P. R Subbaiah Vs the State Rep by — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Friday, the Sixteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.17578 of 2015

¶6

1 P. R SUBBAIAH

¶7

2 SL.P. ADHIMMAL

¶8

3 S.P. CHINNAIHA @ UDHYAKUMAR

¶9

4 C. KALAIMANI

¶10

5 U.S. SIVAGAMI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED(Rank Not Known)

¶11

¶12

1 THE STATE REP BY

¶13

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION THIRUPATTUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRIT

¶14

(CRIME NO NOT KNOWN\2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶15

For Petitioner : M/S M.S.JEYAKARTHIK Advocate

¶16

For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶17

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506 (ii) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act in Crime No.10 of 2015 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.According to the defacto complainant, she was provided with 32 sovereigns of jewels and household articles worth of Rs.5 lakhs and 5 sovereigns were given to her husband at the time of marriage and thereafter, the accused have harassed the defacto complainant demanding additional dowry of 50 sovereigns of jewels and another Rs. 5 lakhs and a car.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in-laws and the case was referred to Mediation along with the petition in Crl.O.P.No.17461 of 2015 and the same is pending before Mediation. The learned counsel further submitted that due to matrimonial dispute, the family members of the first accused have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶22

Heard the Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

¶23

State.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inclined to enlarge the petitioners 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,

¶25

Thirupputtur, and on each of them executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction to the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶26

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.

¶27

/ TRUE COPY /

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶29

¶30

1 THE STATE REP BY

¶31

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION THIRUPATTUR ,SIVAGANGAI DISTRIT

¶32

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶33

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶34

3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUPPUTTUR

¶35

4 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI

¶36

+1. CC to M/S M.S.JEYAKARTHIK Advocate SR.No.62292

¶37

JAM /26.10.2015/ AAL-MPA/SAR I/2P-6C

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P. R Subbaiah v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. R Subbaiah v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganeshkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Arunachalam Vs State Rep by Inspector of

Suruliram Vs the State Rep by Inspector of

S. Periyapiratti Vs the Inspector of Police

C. Nagarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Gomathi Vs the Inspector of Police