Mohammed Ismail v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15/09/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Mohammed Ismail ... 1st Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by, the Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Dindigul District.
(in Crime No.03 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sakthivel Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.144 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 of BNS r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3 of the Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act, 2002, in Crime No. 03 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the first petitioner is the husband and wife. Due to matrimonial dispute between the parties, the petitioners harassed the de-facto complainant by demanding dowry and driven her out of the matrimonial home. Hence, the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the first petitioner submitted that the first petitioner is ready and willing to live with the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the first petitioner is an innoccent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the first petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted 2/6
that it is a matrimonial dispute. Due to continuos harassment of the accused persons, this complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant and the investigation is almost completed. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the first petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that it is a matrimonial dispute and the first petitoner is willing to live the defacto complainant and also the fact that the investigation has been almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
6.Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, on condition that the petitioner 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 learned Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on further conditions that:
[a]the first petitioner and the sureties shall affix 3/6
their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b] the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c]the first petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d]the first petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e]On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first petitioner is released on bail by the 4/6
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].
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
(S S Y J) 15.09.2025 cp To 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul 2.The Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Dindigul District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
S.SRIMATHY,J cp
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD)No.4992 of 2025 15.09.2025 6/6