Allowed

Umarfarook v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Apr 2015CRL OP(MD)/19899/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding alleged dowry harassment and IPC 498A offenses, the Court granted bail to the petitioners post-mediation failure. The order requires a bond with sureties and specifies conditions including daily police appearance for the first petitioner for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail to petitioners on execution of bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions including daily police appearance for the first petitioner for two weeks.

Umarfarook Vs the Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of April Two Thousand Fifteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.19899 of 2014

¶7

1 UMARFAROOK 2 MOHAMMED SULTHAN 3 MAHAMUDUA BEGAM ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶10

CR. NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2014. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.P.SANTHANA KRISHNAN Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶13

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Dowry Prohibition Act and also Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

This Court on 06.11.2014 referred the case to the Mediation Centre and also directed the respondent police not to arrest the petitioners till the mediation is over.

¶17

Mediation Report shows that both parties were continuously absent. Mediation could not be conducted. Hence, the case was referred back to the Court.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents and they are falsely implicated in this case.

¶19

Learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the accused have demanded dowry from the defacto complainant.

¶20

Considering the above said submissions, 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 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani and on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required and the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and third petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶21

7.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/-

¶22

15/04/2015

¶23

/ TRUE COPY /

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶25

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶26

2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL.

¶27

3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶28

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶29

+1. CC to M/S.P.SANTHANA KRISHNAN Advocate SR.No.19587

¶30

CRL OP(MD) No.19899 of 2014

¶31

PBK 20/04/2015 ::2P-6C:

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Umarfarook v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umarfarook v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Suganthan Vs the Inspector of Police

D.Ramkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohan Vs the Inspector of Police

Thiayagarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Raja @ Appala Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

Lingasamy @ Vaithiyalingam Vs the Inspector of Police