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