M. Adbul Rahman v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of January Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.900 of 2015 1 M. ADBUL RAHMAN 2 M. MOHAMED USMAN 3 M. SAFIYA BEEVI 4 F. MUHAMADHA BEGUM 5 M. FAROOK MOHAMED 6 P. MOHAMED IBRAHIM 7 B. YASMIN BANU 8 M. ABUTHAHIR ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 8 Vs THE STATE REP BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DT, CRIME NO.1/2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.BENAZIR BEGUM Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, 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 alleged offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.1 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner got married to the de facto complainant in the year 2006. It is alleged by the de facto complainant that the first petitioner had pledged her jewelleries and taken away her Ration Card and left her in lurch.

3. Since the allegations against the first petitioner are, indeed, very serious, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to him. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed in respect of the first petitioner.

4. As regards the petitioners 2 to 8, they are relatives of the first petitioner and hence, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Scale 250, this Court is inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to them.

5. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 8 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham, on condition that they 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 condition that:

[a] the petitioners 3, 4 and 8 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners 2, 5, 6 and 8 shall report before the respondent police, twice a day at 10:30 in the morning and 06:30 in the evening for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[b] the petitioners 2 to 8 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [c] the petitioners 2 to 8 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 2 to 8 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 2 to 8 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].

sd/- 21/01/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,NATHAM 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAMADURAI ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DT, 4 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.M.BENAZIR BEGUM Advocate SR.No.2732 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.900 of 2015 Date :21/01/2015 NA/22/01/2015/P2/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/