Madras High CourtCRL OP/22361/2021dismissed

K.P.Shailendra Prabhu v. State Rep.By

2021-11-29Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.22361 of 2021 K.P.SHAILENDRA PRABHU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SOORAMANGALAM, SALEM - 636 016.

(CRIME NO.46 OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S. A.RAJESWARI Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.BALAJI, 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 494(A), 506(1) of IPC r/w 4 of D.P. Act in Crime No.46 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant and the petitioner loved each other and got married on 11.07.2016. Further, it is alleged that after marriage, the petitioner along with his family members continuously harassed the de-facto complainant and demanded dowry. Hence, this complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and due to 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.in/hcservices/

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 along with his family members continuously demanded dowry from the de-facto complainant and when the same was not obtained by the de-facto complainant, the petitioner and his family members jointly harassed the de-facto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Considering the gravity of the offence and the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2021 and since there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 29/11/2021 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, SOORAMANGALAM, SALEM - 636 016.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. A.RAJESWARI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.22361/2021 Date :29/11/2021 JPA 08/12/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/