A.L.Lokanathan Ravi (Alias) Ravikumar v. State Through

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Second day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.15898 of 2021 1 A.L.LOKANATHAN RAVI (ALIAS)RAVIKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] 2 L. ALAGAPPAN 3 MANGAIYARKARASI Vs STATE THROUGH [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W-27, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

(IN CRIME NO.UN KNOWN/ 2021.) For Petitioner : M/S.R.SATHYAPAL Advocate For Respondent : M/S. C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Defacto Complainant : MR.J.Franklin, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 498(A), 406, 506(i) of Indian Penal Code and other Sections in Cr.No.Unknown of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-3 were the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Petitioner/A-1 was already married and had three children. Suppressing the earlier marriage, A-1 made an advertisement in the matrimonial site with the help of petitioners/A-2 and A-3 and married the defacto complainant and thereafter demanded dowry. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioners. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

prosecution. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) submits that petitioners' have suppressed the earlier marriage of A-1 and arranged for another marriage with defacto complainant. Coming to know of the same, the defacto complainant made a complaint and the investigation is pending. He vehemently oppose for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioners have suppressed the earlier marriage of A-1 and have spoiled the life of the defacto complainant by entering into marriage with the defacto complainant and upon perusing the photos and documents of the earlier marriage of the petitioner/A-1 produced by the learned counsel of the intervenor, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 02/09/2021 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 STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W-27, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S.R.SATHYAPAL Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.9478 CRL OP.15898/2021 Date :02/09/2021 APN 22/09/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/