Sheik Abdul Kadar @ Sanjai v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of March Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) No.21132 of 2016 1 SHEIK ABDUL KADAR @ SANJAI 2 A.REENA BANU 3 AKBAR 4 FAKRUDEEN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 Vs STATE REP.BY , THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARUR CRIME NO.4 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT GOMATHI ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.T.PON RAMKUMAR, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners / A1 to A4 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294-B, 323, 506(i) IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Crime No.4 of 2016 on the file of the respondent Police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the respondent/State and also the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and the petitioners 2 to 4 are the in-laws of the defacto complainant. The first petitioner and the defacto complainant loved each other, married on 26.01.
2012 and lived together at Bangalore for some time. Due to misunderstanding, the defacto complainant left the first petitioner and filed a petition for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur. While so, she lodged the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.
false complaint against the petitioners as if they ill-treated her by demanding dowry. He would further submit that for the occurrence alleged to have been taken place in the year 2012, the present false complaint has been filed after a lapse of four years. The petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the investigation is pending.
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 arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and on each 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 on further condition that the first petitioner shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and the petitioners 2 to 4 shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. 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 made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 15/03/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,KARUR.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,KARUR 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate SR.No.14982 gcg CSL/SV-MMS/SAR-III/20.03.2017 : 2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.21132 of 2016 Date :15/03/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/