Madras High CourtCRL OP/5322/2020disposed of

C.Ramesh v. The State Represented By

2021-09-03Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Third day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.5322 of 2020 1 C.RAMESH [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 CHINNADURAI 3 C.KASIYAMMAL 4 C.DHAVAMANI Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE EAST, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

(CR.NO.2/2020) For Petitioner : M/S.R.SUBRAMONIUM Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.K.SUTHAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A) & 406 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.02 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein are the in-laws of the defacto-complainant. 1st petitioner / A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant. The 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant got married on 25.10.2012 and begotten a child. Thereafter, there was no compatibility between A1 and the defacto complainant, as the petitioner had demanded for dowry and therefore, the defacto complainant left the company of the 1st petitioner and lodged a complaint before the law enforcing agency against the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A1 expressed his willingness to live with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

defacto complainant in the counselling given, but the same was rejected by the defacto complainant. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that after investigation charge sheet has been filed and there is no apprehension for arrest.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the charge sheet has been filed, there is no apprehension for arrest of the petitioners by the respondent and therefore the question of Anticipatory Bail does not arise. However the liberty is granted to the petitioners to work out the remedy in accordance with law. Hence this petition is disposed of with the above observation. -sd/- 03/09/2021 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VII, COIMBATORE.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COIMBATORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE EAST, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.R.SUBRAMONIUM Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.5322/2020 Date :03/09/2021 CSK 14/09/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/