IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Monday, the Seventh day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.2726 of 2022

1 SHANTHI

[ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

2 NAGARAJ

3 PURUSHOTH @ PARASURAMAN

Vs

STATE REP BY

[ RESPONDENT ]

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,

UTHOKOTTAI,

CR.NO. 19/2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.S.PANDIYAN Advocate

For Respondent : MR. S.SANTHOSH, 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 the

respondent police for the offences punishable under 294(b), 323,

498(A), 406, 506(i) of IPC and r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of

Harassment of Woman Act in Crime No.19 of 2021 on the file of the

respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1^st petitioner' son

Sumanraj and the defacto complainant are husband and wife and out of

wedlock they blessed with one female child. Later due to the illicit

intimacy having by her husband with another lady, the defacto

complainant gave a complaint on 19.03.2021, to return the sreethana

properties of 9 ½ sovereigns gold and Rs.1,85,000/-. After seeing

the said complaint, the petitioners who are the mother and brothers of

her husband assured to return the same within six months, but did not

complied the same. Afterwards, during the time of occurrence all the

petitioners after made abuse, also threatened the defacto complainant

with dire consequences. Hence the complaint.

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

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed the offence

as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the alleged

occurrence had happened due to the family dispute and as of now the

main accused who is the husband of the defacto complainant secured by

police and afterwards released on bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the

respondent police fairly conceded that the petitioners are the in-laws

of the defacto complainant. He further submits that there is no

previous case pending against the petitioner and the investigation is

pending. However, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory

bail to the petitioners.

5.The submission made by the learned counsel on either side is

considered.

6. The averments found in the FIR disclosed the fact that the

petitioners 1 to 3 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant, and

since they are related to the defacto complainant, the question of

tampering of the evidence cannot be arised. Moreover, the main accused

has already been arrested and released on bail, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary for completing

the investigation.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners

with certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on

bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of

fifteen (15) days before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial

Magistrate Court at Uthukottai on condition that the petitioners shall

execute 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

respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to

the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further

conditions that:

[a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their

photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the

Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or