A.Sameeullah v. State Of Tamilnadu Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.08.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN 1.A.Sameeullah 2.P.Umeera Kowser ... Petitioners Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu represented by, The Inspector of Police, Ambur Town Tirupattur District.

(Crime No.97 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.97 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioners :

Mr.K.Venkateswaran For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2) and 85 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in Crime No.97 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. On a complaint given by one Asma to the respondent police, case in Crime No.97 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 was registered by the respondent police. According to the defacto complainant, the marriage between her and the first accused were solemnized during the month of July 2024. At the time of marriage, her in-laws demanded 50 sovereigns of jewels and Unicorn Two-Wheeler. The defacto complainant's parents were able to mobilize only 40 sovereigns of jewels and they gave the same. However, after marriage her husband and in-laws continuously harassed her demanding balance 10 sovereigns of jewels and Twowheeler. It is alleged that when there was a quarrel between her and in-laws, brother of her husband attacked her physically, and the petitioners, who are mother-in-law and father-in-law abused her in filthy language. 2/6

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they had been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police states that A1 and A2, who are the husband and brother-in-law of the defacto complainant were arrested and released on bail, as far as these two petitioners are concerned, they are father in-law and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Hence, opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides, 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 3/6

event of arrest or on their appearance, on or before 21.08.2025, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate on or before 21.08.2025, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity 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 abscond either during investigation or trial and he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [e] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall 4/6

not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[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] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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 Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

13.08.2025 dna 5/6

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

dna To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ambur Town Tirupattur District.

(Crime No.97 of 2025) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

13.08.2025 6/6