High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD) NO. 14308 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHYCRL OP(MD) NO. 14308 of 20251. Azeesa banu2. Abdul Majeeth3. Mohamed Hassan AliPetitioners Vs1. The State of Telangana Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Women Police Station, Karimnagar District. (Cr.No.83 of 2025).2. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, Crime No.85 of 2025 RespondentsFor Petitioners: M/s.Paranjothi, forKBS Law Office.For Respondents: Mr.A.S.Abul Kallam Azad,Government Advocate (Criminal side)1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD) NO. 14308 of 2025Prayer: For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.83/2025 on the file of the 1st respondentpolice.ORDERThe petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the 2nd respondentpolice for the offences punishable under Sections 85 read with 3(5) of BNS andSection 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.83 of 2025 on the file of thefirst respondent police, seeks interstate anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioners had been accused of non-bailable offences committedbeyond the territorial jurisdiction limit of the State of Tamil Nadu, has approachedthis Court for anticipatory bail, so as to enable him to approach appropriate Court.3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein are in-laws ofthe defacto complainant and she was harassed and demanded more dowry by herin-laws/petitioners herein and she was also insisted her to settle the property infavour of her husband/A-1 which situate at Karimnagar District. Hence, a case hasbeen registered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD) NO. 14308 of 2025have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The 1st and 2ndpetitioners are inlaws of the defacto complainant and they are aged persons andthey are suffering from various agaed ailments. He further submitted that the 3rdpetitioner is the only person looking after the 1st and 2nd petitioners. Thereis nospecific allegation against these petitioners and the allegatiosn are vague and the arenot demanded dowry from the defacto complainant. Hence, they seeks interimanticipatory bail for the petitioners to enable them to approach the appropriateCourt and seek regular anticipatory bail. He further submits that this Court, insimilar circumstances, granted interim anticipatory bail to the accused to enablethem to seek appropriate bail orders from the concerned Court.5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearingfor the respondents.6. The issue as to whether, in respect of the persons, who have beenaccused of a non-bailable offence, committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction ofthe State of Tamil Nadu, and if his arrest is sought within the jurisdiction of thisCourt, irrespective of the fact that he is a resident of the place over which this Courtcan grant anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, came up for consideration3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD) NO. 14308 of 2025before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.P.Shanthi Swaroop v. State ofTamil Nadu, rep. By Asst. Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madrasreported in 1992 L.W.(Crl.) 475. After elaborate discussion, decisions andconsidering the ratio laid down by the Patna High Court in Syed Safrul Hassan v.State, the Division Bench has passed the following order :“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the High Court or theCourt of Session has got power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Togrant anticipatory bail irrespective of the locale of the Commissionof the offence. In other words, in respect of persons who have beenaccused of a non-bailable offence committed beyond the territorialjurisdiction of the State of Tamil Nadu, if their arrest is soughtwithin the jurisdiction of this Court, irrespective of the fact thatthey are residents of the place over which this Court can grantanticipatory bail. However, we wish to observe that while grantinganticipatory bail, this Court has to restrict the relief for a limitedperiod and to direct the concerned persons to move the Courtwhich is having jurisdiction over the matter in the meantime andalso impose such condition so as to make the petitioner availablefor interrogation by the concerned police in the meantime. Thereference is answered accordingly.”7. Thereafter, a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case ofP.Thangavelu and others v. State, rep. By the Inspector of Police and other reportedin 2017 (2) MWN (Cr.) 633 has passed the following order :“9.Thus, it is seen that though in the State of Uttar Pradesh,the provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C., enabling grant ofAnticipatory bail has been deleted, still the Courts have power togrant Inter-State Anticipatory Bail, more particularly taking into4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD) NO. 14308 of 2025account the provisions under Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndia. In the light of the above Judgments and discussions, thisCourt is of the view that Inter-State Anticipatory Bail can begranted to the petitioner for a limited period to enable them seekappropriate Bail Orders from the concerned Court.10. Accordingly, Interim Anticipatory Bail is granted to thepetitioner herein till 01.08.2016. The petitioners are directed to beenlarged on Bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearancebefore the Judicial Magistrate concerned, subject to the followingconditions:(i) Each petitioner shall execute a Personal Bond for asum of Rs.10,000- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties,to the satisfaction of the Respondent-Police or the Police Officer,who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the Magistrateconcerned;(ii) within the said period, ie., before 01.08.2016, thepetitioner shall appear before the concerned Court of Jurisdiction andmove for Anticipatory Bail before the said Court.11. This Court makes it very clear that Inerim AnticipatoryBail pertaining to Inter-State disputes cannot be sought as a matter ofright and it is purely the discretion of the Court in granting the same,considering the facts, circumstances and also the nature of offences. Itis also made clear that this order, on being produced, shall bepunctually observed and executed by all concerned.”5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD) NO. 14308 of 20258. In view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is inclined to grantinterim anticipatory bail to the petitioners for a period of one month. Accordingly,interim anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners for a period of one month. Thepetitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest or on theirappearance before the respondent police and on further conditions that :(i) the petitioners shall execute a Personal Bond for a sumof Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) withtwo sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of therespondent police or the Police Officer, who intends to arrestor to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Courtat Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District;(ii) within the said period, i.e, before 06.10.2025, thepetitioners shall file an appropriate application before theconcerned jurisdictional Court for pre-arrest/anticipatorybail. sd/- 01/09/2025 / TRUE COPY / /09/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD) NO. 14308 of 2025ksaTO1 The Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi,Ramanathapuram .2 The Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Special Mobile Court (Excise), Karimnagar, Telegana State.3 The Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Women Police Station, Karimnagar DistrictTelangana4 The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.5 The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14308 of 2025 Date :01/09/2025NM/09.09.2025/ 7P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7