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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

1. Najmun

2. Safiyullah

3. Reshma

4. Suhqil Musthafa ... Petitioners Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police W 32 All Women Police Station Madipakkam Chennai Crime No.7 of 2024 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioners on Anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.7 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr. Vedavalli Kumar For Respondent :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

1/6

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 498A. 313 (2 counts) IPC in Crime No.7 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto Complainant were married in the year 2023. Accused-1 is a muslim and defacto Complainant is a Hindu. After marriage, the petitioners demanded dowry and physically abused and tortured the defacto Complainant for money and also the defacto Complainant had two miscarriages. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioners are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 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 petitioner and defacto Complainant married in the year 2023. The petitioners demanded dowry and physically abused and tortured the defacto Complainant. Accused-1 had been arrested and bailed out. 2/6

Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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 facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides, nature of allegation, 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 Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Alandur on condition that each of 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 3/6

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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. [d] 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; [e] the petitioners shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] 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; [g] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme 4/6

Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; [i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

30.07.2025 shl To

1. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Alandur, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police W 32 All Women Police Station Madipakkam Chennai

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

shl 30.07.2025 6/6