Madras High CourtCRL OP/19464/2021dismissed

Jagannath v. The State Rep.By

2021-10-25Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Fifth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19464 of 2021 JAGANNATH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE SATION, CHENGALPATTU.

CRIME NO.16 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.G.THAMIZHAZHAGAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. 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), 406, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 in Cr.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are husband and wife. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2019. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child. The petitioner along with other accused person abused the de-facto complainant in filthy language and demanded dowry. When the same was not obtained by the de-facto complainant, the petitioner did not take care of the child and the de-facto complainant and continuously harassed the de-facto complainant. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that due to some family dispute, the de-facto complainant has lodged this false complaint against the petitioner and he also submitted that the co-accused was already enlarged on bail in Crl.O.P.No.18243 of 2021 dated 30.09.2021. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused person continuously harassed the de-facto complainant and demanded more dowry from her and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and since there are serious allegations made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 25/10/2021 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 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE SATION, CHENGALPATTU.

CC to M/S.G.THAMIZHAZHAGAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.19464/2021 Date :25/10/2021 RW 10/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/