Madras High Court
CRL OP/29679/2017 of MUHAMED AFROZE, 54 YRS, Vs STATE REP BY, on 28 December 2017
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS( Criminal Jurisdiction )Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice R.PONGIAPPANCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.29679 of 2017
1 MUHAMED AFROZE[ PETITIONERS/ ACCISED ]2 NIZAMULLAH3 MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE4 MOHAMMED JAVED
VsSTATE REP. BY,[ RESPONDENT]INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VANIYAMBADI TOWN POLICE STATION,VELLORE DISTRICT.[CRIME NO.530/2017]
For Petitioner : M/S.M.PREMKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard both sides.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused A1 to A4 in CrimeNo.530 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police. They wereapprehended arrest at the hands of the respondent police for thealleged offences Under Section 294(b), 498 and 506 (i) IPC and theyhave filed this petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner andthe defacto complainant are the husband and wife. It is allegedthat the first petitioner quarrelled with the defacto complainantand sent her out of the matrimonial house and he also got secondmarriage. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant,the petitioner along with the second petitioner, who is the brother-in-law of the first petitioner, scolded her in filthy language andalso threatened her. It is also alleged that the petitioners 3 and4 are the Muthavallis at whose instigation, the first petitioner gotsecond marriage.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submittedthat the petitioners has been falsely implicated in this case. Hehas not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and he is no way connected with the offences and pleads for grant ofanticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that on thecomplaint given by the defacto complainant, FIR in Crime No. 530 of2017 has been registered on 17.12.2017 and the investigation isgoing on.
6. Considering the submissions made by either side, it appearsthat the marriage between the defacto complainant and the firstaccused solemnised in the year 2003. Thereafter both of them wereblessed with a female child. After thirteen years from the date oftheir marriage the defacto complainant made an allegation againstthe petitioners as the first petitioner solemnised second marriagewith the help of one Muthuvalli. Even though, the defactocomplainant has not specifically stated the date and time of thesecond marriage, it is necessary for the investigation officer toverify whether the second marriage has taken place or not, for whichcustodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. Soconsidering the manner of offence committed by the petitioners whichrequires custodial interrogation this Court is not inclined toentertain this petition.
7. Accordingly this criminal original petition standsdismissed.
-sd/-
28/12/2017
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carriedinto execution by all concerned TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VANIYAMBADI TOWN POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1CC to M/S.M.PREMKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessarycharges SR NO.23447
MK:29/12/2017