Allowed

Kothar Maideen v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/298/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing arrested under IPC and TN PCHWA sections for alleged matrimonial disputes and dowry demands, subject to several conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on condition of executing bond with two sureties, appearing for interrogation, and refraining from tampering with evidence or absconding.

Kothar Maideen Vs The Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.298 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 29/03/2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP(MD)No.298 of 2021

¶7

1.Kothar Maideen

¶8

2.Vava Meeral Papathi 3.Seiyadu Ali Fathima @ Syedali Fathima W/o.Seiyaadu Ibrahim 4.Seiyadu Ali Fathima W/o.Kumar @ Sivamurugan ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4

¶9

Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. Crime No.8/2020 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Krishnan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Srinivasan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

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

¶11

PRAYER :-

¶12

For Anticipatory bail in Crime No.8 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(1), 498(A) IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act in Crime No.8 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 04.12.2016. After marriage, the first petitioner and other in-laws https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ harassed the defacto complainant by demanding additional dowry.

¶16

1/3

¶17

CRL OP(MD)No.298 of 2021

¶18

Hence, the complaint.

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that it is a matrimonial dispute and investigation is pending.

¶21

5.It is seen that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant got married in the year 2016 and they blessed with one child. From the year 2017 they got separated. The defacto complainant filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.101 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti, which is still pending. The first petitioner filed a divorce petition in the year 2018 and subsequently, withdrawn the same. The other petitioners herein are in-laws of the defacto complainant. The main allegation is that the first petitioner is having some illegal relationship and the same was appreciated by the family members. Further, it is seen that the matter was referred to mediation. However, permanent alimony could not be reached.

¶22

6.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶23

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District, 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 respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶24

(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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶25

(b)the petitioners shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation;

¶26

(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶27

(d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation or trial;

¶28

2/3

¶29

CRL OP(MD)No.298 of 2021

¶30

(e)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]; and;

¶31

(f)if the accused/petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶32

sd/29/03/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶33

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶34

¶35

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE No.I, KOVILPATTI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶36

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KOVILPATTI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶37

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶38

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.298 of 2021 Date :29/03/2021 GNS TK/VR/07.04.2021/3P/5C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Kothar Maideen v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothar Maideen 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Rajasekar Vs The Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Kannayiram Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Mohankumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Illayaraja Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Maharajkumar Vs The Inspector of Police