Ameen v. The State, Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Ameen

2. Shameem

3. Khurshith Petitioner(s) Vs The State, Rep by, The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

Crime No. 29 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petitions is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the Crime. No. 29 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Jeremiah

For Respondent(s):

Mr.R.Vinothraja GA (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 85 of BNS Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.29 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant married to the first petitioner on June 05, 2024, and lived a happy marital life for eight months. However, the relationship allegedly soured when the petitioner refused to set up an independent matrimonial home and began demanding dowry, due to which, she left the matrimonial home in February, 2025. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioners never demanded dowry from the defacto complainant. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory

bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners demanded dowry and harassed the defacto complainant forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. The learned counsel opposes the grant of anticipatory bail stating that the complaint made by the defacto complainant warrants further investigation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Arakkonam 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 proof of payment of deposits, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioners fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the first petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [d] The second and third petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; [e] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [f] the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [g] the petitioners to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for Police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [h] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[i] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[j] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

12-06-2025 Jai Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The State, Rep by, The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, Arakkonam, Ranipet District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Arakkonam.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

Jai CRL OP No. 16509 of 12-06-2025