G.B.Suresh v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh day of October Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18636 of 2021 G.B.SURESH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUTTANI, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

CRIME.NO.14/2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.M.V.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 417, 498(A) & 506(i) of I.P.C r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Harassment Act in Crime No. 14 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner and there was dowry demand by the petitioner and his father and the defacto complainant was harassed and due to the same, there arose a wordy quarrel between them and the petitioner threatened the De-facto Complainant with dire consequence which resulted in the registration of FIR.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the co-accused was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.16464 of 2021 and, hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that due to the dispute between the petitioner and the De-facto Complainant, the petitioner has committed the offence of mixing poison in the tea taken by the De-facto Complainant and that the De-facto Complainant has been discharged from the hospital. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. As there was no serious allegation levelled against the coaccused, he was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, but considering the fact that the main allegation against the petitioner is that he mixed poison in the tea and gave it to the petitioner coupled with the other allegations made against him, the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner warrants this Court to decline anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

-sd/- 27/10/2021 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 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUTTANI, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.M.V.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.18636/2021 Date :27/10/2021 INBA-17/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/