Jayachandran v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.5848 of 2021 AND CRL.MP.NO.6797 of 2021 JAYACHANDRAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MARUR, MARUR TALUK, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.
(CR.NO.15/2020) For Petitioner : M/S.KARAN AND UDAY Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.G.SARAVANAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- (The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and Section 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.15 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the as per the defacto complainant viz. Banumathy is that the marriage between her and the petitioner took place on 16.07.2018 and within a month of their marriage, her husband had taken her to Poland and without her consent, she was compelled to work in a restaurant. The further allegation is that the petitioner used to drink everyday and assaulted and committed cruelty on her. Thereafter,the defacto
complainant informed the same to her mother, thereby, her mother took a flight ticket and brought her back to India. After coming to India, she filed a petition for divorce before the family court, at that time, the relatives of the 1st accused came to her and consoled her and made her withdraw the divorce petition and took her to the matrimonial house in India and demanded Rs.25 Lakhs as additional dowry and they had also assaulted, threatened her and driven her out of the matrimonial house.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a case of matrimonial dispute which has been exaggerated and a false complaint has been given against him and prays for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. .The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that in an earlier occasion, this Court dismissed the criminal original petition vide order dated 21.12.2020 in Crl.OP.No.15573 of 2020 in respect of first petitioner /petitioner herein on the ground that that the gravity of offence committed by the first petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the fact that this Court dismissed the criminal original petition vide order dated 21.12.2020 in Crl.OP.No.15573 of 2020 in respect of first petitioner /petitioner herein on the ground that that the gravity of offence committed by the first petitioner and there is no change of circumstances and liable to be dismissed. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. -sd/- 04/08/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MARUR, MARUR TALUK, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.KARAN AND UDAY Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.5848/2021 AND CRL.MP.NO.6797/2021 Date :04/08/2021 CSK 14/09/2021