IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE METORPOLITAN SESSINS JUDGE:
METROPOLITAN CRIMINAL COURTS: NAMAPPLY: AT HYDERABAD
Crl. M.P. No. OF 2016
IN
Crime No. 160 OF 2016
Between:
Sahil Mahendra Jain S/o. Sri. Mahendra Somchand Jain,
Aged 30 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o. 13, Ramesh Park Society,
Near Panchsheel Bus Stand, Shanthinagar,
Usmapura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat State. Petitioner/Accused No. 1
And
1. The State of Telangana,
Through Station House Officer,
Women Police Station,
Begumpet, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. Megha Jain W/o. Sri. Sahil Jain,
Aged 28 years, Occupation: Housewife,
Plot No. 25, Phase II, Paigah Colony,
Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad. Respondents
PETITION FILED U/s. 438 OF Cr. P.C.
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION: 498-A, 506 IPC R/W. SEC. 4 & 6 D.P.
ACT.
May it please your Honour:
Before delving into the merits or otherwise of the case, it is
useful to narrate the summary of the complaint in brief:
1. The 2nd Respondent is the wife of the Petitioner, the marriage
solemnized on 20.02.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs at
Mehasana, Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat. It was an arranged
marriage, the alliance having been brought by one Sri. Pradeep Jain.
The
2nd Respondent further states that the engagement ceremony took
place on 26.10.2008 and that thenceforth her misery started.
According to the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner is an alcoholic,
womanizer and woman beater and was being encouraged in these
deeds by his family members. The family of the Petitioner never
behaved or treated the 2nd Respondent caringly and never taught
about the traditions and customs being followed in the family. The
routine of the Petitioner according to
2nd Respondent was getting up late in the noon and go to shop and
return in the midnight or early morning in highly inebriated condition.
The 2nd Respondent asserts that her father is a rich man and she
herself is an Income-tax assessee. To subdue the Petitioner and his
family members not only the amount of dowry was invested in
Petitioners family business, but the 2nd Respondent herself invested.
2. It is submitted that in the interregnum on 15.11.2012, the parties
were blessed with a son named as Yatharth, now 3 years 9 months
old. Even the addition in the family did not change the attitude of the
Petitioner and his family members. On the other hand it increased.
Unable to understand the reason behind such behavior and indifferent
attitude, the 2nd Respondent asserts to have pondered and reflected
and came to a conclusion that the Petitioner and his family members
are expecting rs.50.00 Lakhs additional dowry. That from 12.9.2015,
when 2nd Respondent was allegedly necked out, she is staying with her
parents at Secunderabad. On 5.2.2016, the Petitioner allegedly came
to Hyderabad and called the 2nd Respondent from a hotel. The 2nd
Respondent was further threatened that in the event of failure on her
part to get dowry as demanded, the earlier behavior shall continue.
Thereafter, the Petitioner allegedly contacted the 2 nd Respondent on
land-line and threatened her. In the background of the allegations, the
Petitioner respectfully submits as under:
i). That the Petitioner is law abiding citizen and first cousin of
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jain, who is a reputed Chartered Accountant in
Hyderabad, owning extensive immovable properties.
ii). The absurdity of the allegation is evident from the allegation that
the misery of the 2nd Respondent started on the day of engagement.
There is a gap of more than four months between the engagement and
the marriage and it is not the case of the 2 nd Respondent that she
joined the society of the Petitioner from the date of engagement.
iii). That the Petitioner is a teetotaler and is known in the business
circle of Ahmedabad as a sincere and a cool person. The allegations in
the complaint is casting a stigma on the image of the Petitioner.
iv). That a perusal of the complaint goes to show that the
2nd Respondent is highly qualified and well informed lady. It is
unbelievable that from the date of marriage till the date of complaint
i.e., 29.08.2016, no complaint was not lodged nor any meeting of
elders of the community was held. A rich lady like the 2 nd Respondent
could not have maintained stoic silence for 8 years and retaliated so
wildly after 8 years. This lone factor creates any amount of doubt on
the version of the
2nd Respondent.
v). The proceedings before the 1st Respondent shows that the
2nd Respondent flatly refused the offer of reconciliation outright. This
shows the stubborn nature of the 2nd Respondent.
vi). The subordinates of the 1st Respondent are making hectic
efforts to arrest the Petitioner and his family members. Appreciating
this fact, the Honble High Court of the State of Gujarat granted transit
anticipatory bail to the Petitioner and his family members vide orders
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 26085/2016 dated
03.10.2016. However, the interim orders are directed to be operative
till 18.10.2016 to enable the Petitioners therein to approach the
competent Court. Hence, this application.
That the allegation in the complaint are baseless and if the Petitioner is
apprehended in a case with vague and omnibus allegations, not only
the image of the Petitioner will receive irreparable dent in the society,
but would also cause mental agony.
The Petitioner is prepared to furnish surety as per the directions
of this Honble Court and shall abide by any/all conditions that may be
imposed by the Court.
It is therefore, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to
direct the 1st Respondent to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event
of arrest of the Petitioner in connection with Crime No. 160/2016 on the
file of Women Police Station, Beugmpet, Hyderabad and pass such
other suitable order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and
proper under the circumstances of the case.
DATE: 05.10.2016
PLACE: HYDERABAD COUNEL FOR THE
PETITIONER
IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE
METORPOLITAN SESSINS JUDGE:
METROPOLITAN CRIMINAL
COURTS: NAMAPPLY: AT
HYDERABAD
Crl. M.P. No. OF 2016
IN
Crime No. 160 OF
2016
Between:
Sahil Mahendra Jain
Petitioner/Accused No. 1
And
The State of Telangana,
Through Station House Officer,
Women Police Station,
Begumpet, Hyderabad & another.
Respondents
PETITION FILED U/s. 438 OF
Cr. P.C.
Filed on:
Filed by:
M/s. Vijay B. Praopakari,
K.S. Kumar &
Ganesh Kumar,
Advocates.
Counsel for Petitioner/Accused No.1
