G.Muruganandam v. Iop, Thiruvarur

Crl.O.P.No.22518 of 2022 Crl.O.P.No.22518 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506(1) IPC, r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in Crime No.65 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are husband and wife. It is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons demanded huge dowry from the defacto complainant. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant the accused persons harassed and threatened her. Hence, the complaint.

3. It is seen from the records that this is the third anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner. The earlier petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is ready and willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed on him.

4. The learned counsel for the Intervener vehemently opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.22518 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

mn

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner harassed the defacto complainant by demanding huge dowry and there is no change of circumstances after the previous dismissal orders passed by this Court on merits. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and that there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 19.09.2022 mn Crl.O.P.No.22518 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis