B.R.Damodaren v. The Inspector Of Police

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

The petitioner, B.R.Damodaren, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 384 & 506 (2) IPC, in Crime No.257 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated in Crime No.257 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 294 (b), 384 & 506 (2) IPC. Petitioner is innocent and thus, he prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner. 3.In response, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that petitioner posing himself as Senior Counsel received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the defacto complainant in 2016, for vacating tenant of the defacto complainant. However, he acted in favour of the tenant and did not pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- received from the defacto complainant. Defacto complainant is now a member of Tamil

Nadu Yadhava Maha Sabha Committee. On 17.06.2023, at about 3 p.m., petitioner called defacto complainant through cell phone No.9361912179 made defamatory allegations against the female members of the defacto complainant's family and the abovesaid Sabha and threatened that it will be posted in social media. He also threatened the defacto complainant to get money from Tamil Nadu Yadhava Maha Sabha, else, he would set defacto complainant and his family members with fire. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that petitioner is a regular offender and nine cases are pending against him. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5.In reply, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was ready to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-. There are no material available to corroborate the other allegations made. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/intervenor produced typed set of papers containing the Whatsapp Chat of the petitioner and the contents of the conversation between petitioner and defacto complainant to show the

petitioner's involvement in the offence alleged against him. A poster with allegations against the Mylapore Deputy Commissioner is also produced before this Court. It is seen from the poster and Whatsapp communication that petitioner claims himself as one who completed M.A. and B.L. However, it is submitted by the learned defacto complainant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petitioner has not completed any degree and he is a school drop out. 6.Taking into consideration the materials filed in this case, allegations made against the petitioner and that previous cases are pending against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 14.07.2023 sli

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

sli 14.07.2023