Allowed

Mohamed Asim @ Mohamed Azeem Faizal Rahuman v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Jun 2021CRL OP(MD)/4859/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for dowry-related offences including cheating and public nuisance. Court noted prosecution investigation concluded with Section 420 dropped. Grant anticipatory bail subject to surety bond, daily reporting, and other conditions. Breach may lead to fresh arrest.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail with bond, two sureties, daily reporting, and conditions against absconding or tampering with evidence.

Mohamed Asim @ Mohamed Azeem Faizal Rahuman Vs The… — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.4859 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 17/06/2021 PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.4859 of 2021

¶7

Mohamed Asim @ Mohamed Azeem Faizal Rahuman

¶8

... Petitioners/Accused A-1

¶9

¶10

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari. Cr.No.288 of 2019. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s.Mohammed Aasif, Advocate.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

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

¶14

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime no.288 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 420 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.288 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that A.1 is known to the defacto complainant as family friend. The second accused is the mother of the first accused and the third accused is the husband of the fourth accused. It is alleged that the second accused got 19 sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant at the time of marriage of the fourth accused. Even after marriage, the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused told the defacto complainant that there was some dispute

¶18

1/3

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.4859 of 2021

¶20

with regard to giving dowry and therefore, she further demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,00/- from the defacto complainant. Considering the said request, the defacto complainant transferred a sum of Rs.48,000/- to the account of the first accused and a sum of Rs.49,000/- to the account of the third accused on 04.02.2017. Totally she transferred a sum of Rs.97,000/-. When she demanded her jewels and money back, the accused said to have criminally intimidated her and abused her. Therefore, the present case came to be registered.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.1 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and this case has been falsely registered against him.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State submitted that after investigation, the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., is dropped from this case and now this case has been altered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i)I.P.C., and he also produced a copy of the alteration report.

¶23

It is seen from the alteration report that the defacto complainant has not produced any material to show that she parted with 19 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.97,000/- cash. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 I.P.C., was dropped. It is further submitted that the investigation in this case is over and a final report has also been filed. Taking note of this said development, now what remains in this case is the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C., Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶24

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel at Kanyakumari District, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on his 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 said Magistrate and on further condition that:

¶25

[a] the petitioner 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;

¶26

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

¶27

[c]the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶28

[d]the petitioner shall not abscond either during https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation or trial;

¶29

2/3

¶30

CRL OP(MD). No.4859 of 2021

¶31

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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];

¶32

[f] If the accused/petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶33

sd/-

¶34

17/06/2021 / TRUE COPY /

¶35

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

¶36

SSL

¶37

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.

¶38

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERANIEL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶39

2 DO THROUGH: THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERANIEL POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, KANYAKUMARI. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER

¶40

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4859 of 2021 Date :17/06/2021 KM:RSK:SAR4(22.06.2021) 3P 5C

¶41

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

¶42

3/3

Mohamed Asim @ Mohamed Azeem Faizal Rahuman v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Asim @ Mohamed Azeem Faizal Rahuman 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

Deva Shanthakumari Vs The Inspector of Police

Shahul Hameed Vs The Inspector of Police

Lenin Vs The Inspector of Police

Moni Kuttan @ Aadumoniyan @ Moniyan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sargunam Vs The Inspector of Police

Senthilkumar Vs The Inspector of Police