Pratheesh Raj v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of July Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.9103 of 2021 & CRL.MP.NO.6798 of 2021 PRATHEESH RAJ [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION-PERUR, COIMBATORE CRIME NO.3 OF 2021 ARCHANA RAJ [INTERVENOR PETITIONER/ (ORDERED AS PER ORDER OF THIS DEFACTO COMPLAINANT] COURT DATED 28/07/2021 MADE IN CRL.MP.NO.6798 OF 2021 IN CRL.O.P.No.9103 OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S.S.V.PRAVIN RATHINAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) FOR INTERVEnor : M/S.P.SARAVANA SOWMIYAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.3 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of this petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner and his family members harassed the defacto complainant and demanding dowry and also committed cruelty on her. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that earlier this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner dated 13.05.2021 and the matter has been referred to the Mediation on the ground that the investigation may be transferred to the Thrissur, Kerala. Till date, investigation has not been transferred.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the petitioner and his family members had harassed the defacto complainant and demanded dowry and committed cruelty on her. He further submits that the investigation is at preliminary stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant would submit that the petitioner had married the defacto complainant in the year 2015 and they have blessed two children. He further submits that the petitioner had harassed the defacto complainant and committed cruelty on her. Hence, he strongly opposef for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the investigation is at preliminary stage, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner dated 13.05.2021 is vacated.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 28/07/2021 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 PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COIMBATORE 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION-PERUR, COIMBATORE +1 CC to M/S.S.V.PRAVIN RATHINAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges S.R. NO.7999 CRL OP.9103/2021 & CRL.MP.NO.6798/2021 Date :28/07/2021 RW 03/08/2021