Pradip v. State Rep.By

Crl.O.P.No.13389 of 2024 Crl.O.P.No.13389 of 2024 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and 509 of IPC r/w Sections 67, 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.155 of 2023 on the file of respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner uploaded the abusive images of the defacto complainant in social media via, Twitter. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second anticipatory bail petition, and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submit that the defacto complainant and his friends had posted a post, showing the petitioner badly dressed women and projected the petitioner in a bad lime light. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would raised serious objection stating that the defacto T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.13389 of 2024 drl complainant and his friends family took a photograph and the photograph was shared by the defacto complainant's brother Srinivasan in his twitter handle. Using that, the petitioner replaced the faces with emojis, and had posted with abusive language. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending.

5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the counsels and also on considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25.07.2024 drl Crl.O.P.No. 13389 of 2024 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis