Praveen Kumar v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.18757 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 354A of IPC, in Crime No.8 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. The second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioners and their mother tortured the defacto complainant and also demanded more dowry. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the Intervener would submit that the petitioners tortured the defacto complainant and demanded more dowry. The second petitioner who is the brother of the first petitioner misbehaved with the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners demanded more dowry from the defacto complainant. He would further submit that the first petitioner compelled the defacto complainant to adjust with the second petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. It is seen from the FIR that there are very serious allegations as against the petitioners. The first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. The second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner. The first petitioner compelled his own wife to adjust with the second petitioner for sexual needs. So many occasions, the second petitioner also misbehaved with the wife of the first petitioner. Therefore, both the petitioners other than demand of huge dowry, they have committed very serious offence as against a woman.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the bad antecedents of the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.08.2022 (2/2) mn

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

mn Crl.O.P.No.18757 of 2022 10.08.2022