Madras High CourtCRL OP/19029/2021dismissed

K.Sivasaravanan v. The State Rep.By

2021-10-28Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19029 of 2021 K.SIVASARAVANAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHACHALAM, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

CR.NO.18/2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.A.RAMALINGAM 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), 294(b), 506(I) IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.18 of 2021 on the file of respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and he is alleged to have demanded dowry from the defacto complainant for the past two years and subsequently the defacto complainant had gone to her parental home and thereafter, the petitioner and his relatives have threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the defacto complainant deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause and settled in her parental home. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners demanded dowry from the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant and it is alleged that the petitioner drove away the defacto complainant from her matrimonial home and also demanded dowry. Considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

-sd/- 28/10/2021 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, VIRUDHACHALAM, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.A.RAMALINGAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.19029/2021 Date :28/10/2021 TA-19/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/