Subashchandrabose v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twentieth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11991 of 2022 SUBASHCHANDRABOSE [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALASAPAKKAM POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.178 OF 2022.

For Petitioner : M/S. E.SATHIYARAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional public Prosecutor 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 Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Crime No.178 of 2022 on the file of respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2022, when the defacto complainant viz., Sivalingam, went to bathroom for bathing, he found that there was an installation of a CCTV camera and thereafter, on verification of memory card through his laptop, he found some of photos of petitioner, which leads to implicate the petitioner to the crime. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and no way connected with the alleged offence. He would further submit the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a possibility to tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has committed a serious offence of installing a CCTV camera in the bathroom, fortunately, when the defacto complainant found the same and brought to the notice of respondent, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 20/05/2022 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, KALASAPAKKAM POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. E.SATHIYARAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.11991/2022 Date :20/05/2022 JPA 26/05/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/