Karunanithi v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.05.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Karunanithi S/o. Dhatchanamoorthy, No.28, Thenvadal Kagithapattarai Street, Mannargudi Taluk, Tiruvarur District.

.. Petitioner/ Sole Accused Vs.

The State rep. by its Inspector of Police, Mannargudi Town Police Station, Thiruvarur District.

[Crime No. 974 of 2020] .. Respondent/ Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.

For Petitioner : Mr. J. Jawahar For Respondent : Mr. T. Shunmuga Rajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. side) 1/5

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for alleged offence punishable under Sections 507 of I.P.C. r/w Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008, in Crime No. 974 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is the owner of SMT Sweet Stall, abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language in respect of official duty of de-facto complainant and published the same in WhatsApp along with audio recording, threatened the de-facto complainant, who is the Tahsildar as well as Revenue Inspector and Municipal Commissioner and prevented them from doing their official work due to lock down announced throughout India because of COVID-19 epidemic and spread defamation statement against the Government employees while discharging their official duty.

2/5

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name is falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner with an ulterior motive, spread false message through social media. The charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature in the present pandemic situation. The investigation is pending and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. A reading of the FIR shows that serious allegations are made against the petitioner that he is threatening the officials, abusing them in filthy language, made defamatory statement and prevented them from doing their official duty. As the de-facto complainant and other Government officials are 3/5

doing their best to prevent the spread of Corona virus in the interest of public in the present pandemic situation and the investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 18.05.2020 Index : Yes / No gsa/kj To 1.The Inspector of Police, Mannargudi Town Police Station, Thiruvarur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

V.M.VELUMANI, J., gsa/kj 18.05.2020 5/5