Mohammed Anvar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of July Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.8629 of 2017 MOHAMMED ANVAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.2 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NILAKOTTAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.2/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.HAROON RASHEED Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.R.BALAMURUGANATHAM, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/ A2 who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.2 of 2017, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that demanding a sum of Rs.10/- lakhs and a car from the de-facto complainant and her family members as dowry, the accused have tortured and harassed the defacto complainant.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner / A2 is the father of the A1. A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant. Due to family dispute, the present false complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant. They have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. Whenever A1 appeared before the respondent Police for enquiry on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant failed to appear and now, the first accused went to abroad.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervener states that his intervening application has been returned by the Registry pointing out some defects. But the same is not yet represented. He would further submit that the defacto complainant is ready to live with the first accused in this case.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent states that there are totally two accused in this case and the petitioner herein is arrayed as A2. He would further submit that A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant herein. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the defacto complainant. The investigation is pending.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the allegations made in the complaint, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate Nilakottai, 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 respondent police or the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.
8. The petitioner 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 shall stand dismissed.
sd/- 18/07/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,NILAKOTTAI 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , DINDIGUL 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE WOMEN POLICE STATION, NILAKOTTAI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to Mr.D.S.HAROON RASHEED Advocate SR.No.26794 +1 cc to Mr.R.BALAMURUGANATHAM, Advocate sr.no.26801 JAM/21.07.17/BS/SAR 2/ 2p-7c
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8629 of 2017 Date :18/07/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/