Shankar @ Saravanan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 16.09.2020 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.14412 of 2020 Shankar @ Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep by its The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tiruppur South, Tiruppur District.

(Crime No.8 of 2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.8 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.S. Arjun For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 354(A) (ii) and 354(B) of IPC, in Crime No.8 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioner has misbehaved with the defacto complainant in a drunken mood. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case since he was neighbor of the defacto complainant, a false case has been foisted against him. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently opposed stating that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he would submit that there are three previous case as against the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner had harassed the defacto complainant in the midnight. He would further submitted that the earlier three complaints were registered under Section 70 of the City Police Act and the petitioner has been repeatedly indulging in such kind of activities. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the petitioner has three previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 16/09/2020 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, TIRUPPUR.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR SOUTH, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

CC to M/S.S.ARJUN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.14412/2020 Date :16/09/2020 cs 24/09/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/