Sultan Pasha v. The Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01/11/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM

¶1Sultan Pasha

¶2Abdul Sathar

¶3Shareen ... Petitioners/Accused No.1,2 & 3

Vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Theni, Theni District. (Crime No.48/2023).. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.Henri Patrick Tiphange,

Advocate. For Respondent : Mrs.M.Aasha,

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.48/2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / accused, who apprehends at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 498(A) IPC r/w. Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.48 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant and the other petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant and they have tortured her by demanding additional dowry and also harassed her both mentally and cruelly. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case and hence he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that it is a case of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and and the investigation of the case is pending.

¶5On perusal of the FIR, it is noticed that there was a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife.

¶6Taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners is having permanent residents at Madurai District and the origin of the crime is matrimonial dispute. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond.

¶7In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Theni District on condition that the petitioners shall execute own bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that : [a] the petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on receipt of summons as directed by the trial Court. [b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [d] 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]. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.19306eofe2023 [e]oIfotheoaccusedothereafteroabsconds,oaofreshoFIRocanobeoregisteredounder Sectiono229AoIPC. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooosd/- ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooo01/11/2023 oooo ooooooooooo/oTRUEoCOPYo/ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo/11/2023 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooSub-AssistantoRegistraro(C.S.ooo) ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooMaduraioBenchoofoMadrasoHighoCourt, ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooMaduraio-o625o023.oo TRP TO 1oooTHEoADDITIONALoMAHILAoJUDGE (JUDICIALoMAGISTRATEoLEVEL),oTHENIoDISTRICT. 2oooDOoTHROUGHoTHEoCHIEFoJUDICIALoMAGISTRATE, THENIoDISTRICT. 3oooTHEoINSPECTORoOFoPOLICE ALLoWOMENoPOLICEoSTATION,oTHENI,oTHENIoDISTRICT. 4oooTHEoADDITIONALoPUBLICoPROSECUTOR, ooo MADURAIoBENCHoOFoMADRASoHIGHoCOURT, ooo MADURAI.o +1oCCotooM/s.R.KARUNANIDHI,oAdvocateo(oSR-15833[I]odatedo02/11/2023o) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.19306oofo2023 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:01/11/2023 SS/DD/SAR-ooo/17/11/2023/5P/6Co MaduraioBenchoofoMadrasoHighoCourtoisoissuingocertifiedoocopiesoinothisoformatofromo17/07/2023o o