Alagappan v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Thirtieth day of March Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.7234 of 2022 1 ALAGAPPAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 A.MANGAIYARKARASI Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VADAPALANI, T.NAGAR DISTRICT.

CHENNAI-600 026.

CR.NO.7 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.S.VIJAYAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.UDHAYAKUMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side), M/S.J.FRANKLIN, (For Defacto Complainant) 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, 506(i) of I.P.C. in Cr.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the parents of A1. A1 was already married and have three children and suppressing this fact A1 is alleged to have made advertisement in the matrimonial site and married the defacto complainant with the help of the petitioners and demanded dowry from the defacto complainant. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and are not aware of any of the allegations made by the defacto complainant.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that A1 through his first marriage have three children, however, suppressing his earlier marriage, he made advertisement in the matrimonial site with the help of the petitioners and married the defacto complainant and demanded dowry. He further submitted that there is specific overtact as against the petitioners and that if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, investigation could not be completed. He further submitted that A1 has already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody and further submitted that earlier, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.Nos.19203, 15898 and 21530 of 2021 and this Court has dismissed the said petitions. 5.

The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners collected huge money from the defacto complainant at the time of marriage and till date the amount has not been settled in favour of the defacto complainant. 6.Considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners and since there is no change in circumstances subsequent to the order passed in Crl.O.P.Nos.19203, 15898 and 21530 of 2021, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. This criminal original petition is accordingly dismissed. -sd/- 30/03/2022 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, VADAPALANI, T.NAGAR DISTRICT, CHENNAI-600 026.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.S.VIJAYAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges +1 CC to M/S.J.FRANKLIN, Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.4871 CRL OP.7234/2022 Date :30/03/2022 TA-01/04/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/