Jainson Jayakumar v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13727 of 2022 JAINSON JAYAKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ] ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI DISTRICT (CRIME NO.7/2022) For Petitioner : M/S.G.V.SRIDHARAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.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 offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC in Crime No.7 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had physical relationship with the defacto complainant for more than years under the guise of marriage. Later the petitioner failed to marry the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had physical relationship with the consent of the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the defacto complainant is having relationship with other person therefore he refused to marry the defacto complainant.

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

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant working as a nurse. The defacto complainant and the petitioner living together for past four years. At that time, the petitioner exploited money from the defacto complainant. Now the petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Admittedly the petitioner and the defacto complainant had sexual relationship with each other for past four years. At that time, the petitioner exploited the income of the defacto complainant. Now, after four years the petitioner failed to marry her stating that the defacto complainant had relationship with other person. It is unacceptable that after four years of relationship, the petitioner suspect about the contact of the defacto complainant. Therefore, the petitioner committed very serious and heinous offence against the defacto complainant. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 15/06/2022 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.G.V.SRIDHARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13727/2022 Date :15/06/2022 RW-23/06/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/