Jenifur v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.02.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.13044 of 2025 1.Jenifur 2.Yasmin 3.S.Jaffer ... Petitioners Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, the Inspector of Police, D4-Thiruppalani Police Station, Madurai City.
(Crime No.469 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.A.K.Nagarajan For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Muniyandi PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.469 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order :- 1/8
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 109 of IPC, in Crime No. 469 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner is the wife of one Peer Mohammed of Thiruppathur and mother of two minor daughters. In the month of October, 2019, the 2nd petitioner came to the house of the defacto complainant. At that time, the defacto Complainant Harrish Mohammed lamented about the previous marriage which ended in divorce. Subsequently, the 2nd petitioner provided an opportunity to talk to the 1st petitioner.
The 1st petitioner told the defacto complainant that her husband daily consumed liquor and beat her cruelly and he is also having unnatural sexual relationship with one Veera Singam of Thenmapattu Village of Thiruppathur. Due to the intolerable conduct of husband Peer Mohammed, the 1st Petitioner/Jenifur deserted Peer Mohammed with children and came to the house of her parents. The Petitioners 1 to 3 told the Defacto Complainant if understanding between the 1st Petitioner and the Defacto Complainant travels after divorce with her husband Peer Mohammed, they could arrange for her marriage. The Defacto Complainant also relying on the words and request of the parents and also the 1st Petitioner/Jenifur agreed to spend for the MBA Course and spent Rs.
47,500/- to Symbiosis Centre for Distance Learning Institution at Pune. Further, the Defacto Complainant alleged that all the Petitioners have to return the jewels and money to the 1st Petitioner's husband Peer Mohammed and due to that he is refusing to come for divorce. In the event of the Defacto Complainant giving money, the 1st Petitioner would be able to pay the same to her husband Peer Mohammed and get divorce from him. Believing the words of the Petitioners, from January, 2020 to December, 2021 an amount of Rs 1,76,000/- was sent to the Indian Bank Branch account of the 2nd Petitioner/Yasmin by the Defacto Complainant. Subsequently, the Petitioners suggested that one Ganesan Poosari to do Poojas, Peer Mohammed would grant Talaq immediately.
The Petitioners also created an opportunity for the Defacto Complainant to talk to the alleged Ganesan Poosari and sent money to one Chandra, daughter of Ganesan Poosari to her Anaiyur Branch SBI account on various dates from December, 2020 an amount of Rs 1,56,000/-. Further the Defacto Complainant presented a Branded watch worth about Rs 40,000/- and also a RADO watch worth about Rs 30,000/- to the 1st Petitioner and also Ganesan Poosari.
Mohammed to get Talaq. There were several other transactions also between the defacto complainant and the petitioners. The Petitioners/Accused along with Peer Mohammed and Ganesan Poosari colluded together and cheated the Defacto Complainant to a tune of Rs. 14,43,567/- and also precious articles worth about Rs 4,19,340/-. When the Defacto Complainant contacted the 1st Petitioner over phone, she adamantly replied and challenged the Defacto Complainant if he comes to her home she would engage men to kill him. After hearing it, the Defacto Complainant cut the phone connection immediately. Hence, the apprehension of arrest. Hence, a case has been registered as against the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offences committed by the petitioners are serious in nature.
4/8
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order copy made ready 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 Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only), to the credit of Crime No.469 of 2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, in two installments. The 1st installment of Rs.3 Lakhs/- shall be paid at the time of producing surety and the 2nd installment of Rs.2 Lakh/- shall be paid within a period of three months therefrom.
passed in the case in Crime No.469 of 2025. The learned Judicial Magistrate or Trial Court shall pass orders regarding entitlement of the said amount in its final order/Judgment.
[c]the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required. [d]the petitioners shall not tamper with the 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner is 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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
23.02.2026 TMG 6/8
TO
1. Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, D4-Thiruppalani Police Station, Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
S.SRIMATHY,J TMG
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.13044 of 2025 Date : 23.02.2026 8/8