Harish v. The State Rep.By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twentieth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19230 of 2021 HARISH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP.BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUVALLUR, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

CR.NO.14/2019.

For Petitioner : M/S.M.RAJINIKANTH Advocate For Respondent : M/S. C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A), 506(i), 354 and 511 of IPC in Crime No.14 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. The petitioner forced the defacto complainant to marry him and after marriage, the petitioner along with his family members continuously harassed the de-facto complainant and demanded huge amount of dowry. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner based on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that due to the family dispute, a false complaint has been lodged against him. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

4.The learned Government Advocate submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner and this Court has already dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. The petitioner continuously harassed the de-facto complainant and demanded dowry and huge amount of money. He further submitted that the petitioner threatened the de-facto complainant saying that he will let out the pictures and videos of the de-facto complainant in Facebook. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Considering the gravity of offence and the earlier anticipatory bail petition having withdrawn by the petitioner and there is no change of circumstances pointed out by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 20/10/2021 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 THEINSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUVALLUR, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.M.RAJINIKANTH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.19230/2021 Date :20/10/2021 APN 28/10/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/