Deepak Tater Jain v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13705 of 2021 1 DEEPAK TATER JAIN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] 2 VARSHA ASWANI 3 GAYATHIRI GOVINRAJ Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T-13, KUNDRATHUR POLICE STATION, KUNDRATHUR, CHENNAI DISTRICT CR NO. 266/2021 For Petitioner : M/S.S.NAMBIRAJAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S. C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 offences punishable under Sections 417, 354(c), 420, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.266 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a business of Manpower supplying consultancy profession. Further, the first petitioner had false promised to marry the defacto complainant and collected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. Further, the petitioners had threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences and the private photo of the defacto complainant uploaded in the social media. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
would further submit that the defacto complainant has already married one person and the wreck revenges, a false case has been given. He further submit that the first petitioner has received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and there is no other allegation against the petitioners. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the first petitioner had false promised to marry the defacto complainant and collected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. Further , the petitioners had threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences and the private photo of the defacto complainant uploaded in the social media. He further submit that the investigation is almost completed. Hence, Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioners had committed very serious offence and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 06/08/2021 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T-13, KUNDRATHUR POLICE STATION, KUNDRATHUR, CHENNAI DISTRICT 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.S.NAMBIRAJAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13705/2021 Date :06/08/2021 APN 22/09/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/