Vignesh v. State Rep By

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 323 and 506 (i) of IPC, in Crime No.13 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner fell in love with the defacto complainant and promised to marry her. Subsequently, the petitioner had physical relationship with the defacato complainant several times and thereafter refused to marry her. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner who had initially promised the defacto complainant to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her, had refused to marry her. He further submitted that the offence has been altered into one under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, he opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the offence has been altered into one under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Court to file an Anticipatory Bail petition.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.05.2023 dk/kan

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

dk/kan 24.05.2023