High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.5349 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 24.03.2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELCRL OP(MD). No.5349 of 20251.Syed Alawdin Khan2.Syed Nabila Banu. ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 4 VsThe State of Tamil NaduRep. by the Inspector of Police,AWPS Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli City.Crime No.51 of 2024 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.P.Rajesh For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSSPRAYER :- For pre-arrest bail in Crime No.51 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5349 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners on 20.03.2025under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grantan order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 4 apprehend arrest at the hands of therespondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 294(b) ofIPC in Crime No.51 of 2024, on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the defactocomplainant and A1 was solemnised on 19.04.2020 as per the Islamic custom. Aftermarriage, A1 went to abroad for work and the defacto complainant was with herhusband's family members/A2 to A4. At that time, A2 to A4, in order to create badimpression about the defacto complainant, gave misinformation to A1. A2 to A4 hadbeen continuously harassing the defacto complainant. On 14.04.2021, the defactocomplainant begot a male child and due to the health condition of the child, she hadto go to Kerala for taking treatment. While the defacto complainant informed thesame to A1 and his family members/A2 to A4, they refused to give money fortreatment. However, after treatment of the child with the help of her parents, shereturned to her parents house. After A1 returned to India, A2 to A4 insisted A1 toleave the defacto complainant. Then, when they decided to do 'Sunnath' to the child,2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5349 of 2025the same was refused by the defacto complainant due to the health condition of thechild, due to which on 18.09.2022, A1, A3 and A4 abused her with filthy language.In spite of their restriction, the defacto complainant got doctor opinion regarding'Sunnath'. Based on the doctor's advice, she did not allow to do 'Sunnath'. After thesaid incident, A1 separated the defacto complainant and her son. A1, along withother accused persons, harassed the defacto complainant and separated her and herson. Hence, the case.4. Mr.P.Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits thatthe petitioners and the defacto complainant are close relatives. He further submitsthat the petitioners are innocent persons and that they have not committed anyoffence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that due to the familydispute, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitsthat A2 and A3 were already granted pre-arrest bail. He further submits that thepetitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.Hence, he prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.5. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Manoj, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)appearing for the respondent-Police, submits that due to the family dispute, the casehas been registered. He further submits that if pre-arrest bail is granted, thepetitioners may cause threat to the defacto complainant and her family members.3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5349 of 2025Hence, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.6. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records and FirstInformation Report.7. The petitioners are, none other than, the husband and sister-in-law of thedefacto complainant, respectively. Due to family dispute, the case has beenregistered. The petitioners have permanent residence and deep roots in the society.Hence, there is less possibility of absconding. A2 and A3 were already granted pre-arrest bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of thepetitioners is not necessary for the Investigating Agency. Considering the said facts,and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners to reform themselves, thisCourt is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to thefollowing conditions:(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest or in theevent of their surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli,within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, onexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each alongwith two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) tothe satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli;4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5349 of 2025(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to ‘The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019’]. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli shall obtain acopy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;(iii) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numberto the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli;(iv) Thereafter, the petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent-Police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders; (v) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by apolice officer as and when required;(vi) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as todissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;(vii) The petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of theCourt;(viii) The petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence; and(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned JudicialMagistrate No.V, Tirunelveli, or Trial Court as the case may be, is entitled to pass5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.5349 of 2025appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if theaforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon-bleSupreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 24/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. apdTO1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli.2.Do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tirunelveli.3.The Inspector of Police,AWPS Palayamkottai,Tirunelveli City.4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5349 of 2025 Date :24/03/2025 MK/SAR /15.04.2025 6P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6