Iqbal v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Third day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22099 of 2015 1 IQBAL 2 RANJITHAM @ AYISA BEEVI 3 HASHAN 4 ABDUL @ ABDUL KANI 5 ALI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.2 to 6 Vs
1. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KAMUTHI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CR NO.18 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT 2 J. KANAGAVALLI ... DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S G.VISHNURAM Advocate For 1st Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The Petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 6, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 406, 498(A) and 506(i) of I.P.C. r/w. Section 4 of Women Harassment Act r/w. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.18 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first accused and the de-facto complainant was solemnised in the year 2013 and in the of wedlock, a child was born and the first accused wanted to go to abroad and asked the de-facto complainant to give money. She refused the same and therefore, a wordy quarrel arose between them and the accused abused the de-facto complainant with filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of A1 and the petitioners 3 to 5 are brother-in-laws of the defacto complainant. It is further submitted that the marriage between A1 and the de-facto complainant is love marriage and after the marriage, they were living separately and the petitioners are nothing to do with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
the alleged offences.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioners harassed the de-facto complainant demanding dowry.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District and on their executing 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 learned Magistrate concerned and the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The Petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.
6. The Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 23/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KAMUTHI 2 DO THRO THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KAMUTHI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI +1. CC to M/S G.VISHNURAM Advocate SR.No.66971
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.22099 of 2015 Date :23/11/2015 AM/25.11.2015/AN/SAR-I/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/