Mohamed Pasilkani Alias Mohammed Bazilkani v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dindigul
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03.07.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI 1.Mohamed Pasilkani @ Mohammedbazilkani 2.Hajamoideen @ KajaMoideen 3.Mumthaj Begum 4.Mohamed Bilal 5.Mohammed Ali 6.Fatima 7.Mohamed Ashbir @ Ashbir 8.SherinYuganitha 9.Sabur Begum ... Petitioners / A1 to A9 Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.11 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant 1/6
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners :
M/s.N.Rekha, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 498(A), 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was married to the 1st petitioner (A1) on 24.04.2024, and the marriage was solemnized by the Muslim Sunnath Jamath in the presence of family elders. She further stated that her parents had gifted her jewellery and household articles at the time of marriage and had also borne the marriage expenses. The defacto complainant initially resided with the 1st petitioner (A1) as a joint family along with petitioners Nos.2 to 4. Subsequently, the 1st petitioner left for Chennai due to his employment, approximately two months after the marriage. The defacto complainant further alleged that petitioners Nos.1 to 9 harassed her by demanding additional dowry and 2/6
threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He would further submit that there no previous cases against the petitioners. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there are totally nine accused persons in this case and the petitioners have been arrayed as A1 to A9. He would further submit that this is a family dispute between the parties. He would further submit that the accused persons demanded additional dowry from the defacto complainant and subjected her to harassment by threatening her with dire consequences. He would further submit that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. He would also submit that the investigation is still pending, and therefore, he opposes the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the nature of offence allegedly committed by the petitioners and 3/6
also taking note that there are no previous cases against the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their 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 Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul and on further conditions that:
(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. (b) the petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile number to the learned Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul. In the event of any change in their residential address, the petitioners shall report the same to the learned Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul.
(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.
4/6
(d) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. (f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. (g) if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.
8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to the conditions stated supra.
Sd/- 03.07.2025 // True Copy // / /2025 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court pal TO 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul.
5/6
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s. N.REKHA, Advocate(SR-7208 [I] dated 03/07/2025)
ORDER
IN CRL.OP(MD).No.11222 of 2025 Date : 03.07.2025 RA - ( 23.07.2025) 6P/ 5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 6/6