Madras High CourtCRL OP/21796/2021dismissed

M.Saravanan v. State Rep By

2021-11-19Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Nineteenth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21796 of 2021 M.SARAVANAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN EAST PULIYAKULAM POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE.

CRIME NO.839 OF 2021), POTHANUR POLICE STATION.

For Petitioner : M/S.A.J.MOHAMED KASSIM Advocate For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, 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 at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.839 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are close relatives. The de facto complainant is a married woman and has two children. The petitioner is the brother of the de facto complainant's sister in law. It is alleged that the petitioner has sent messages to the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant's husband came to know the communication between the de facto complainant and the petitioner, the de facto complainant's husband left the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner gave assurance to the de facto complainant that the petitioner would arrange a good job to the de facto complainant and subsequently, the petitioner called the de facto complainant to come to a particular hotel at Sundarapuram on 26.07.2021 and the de facto complainant went there and the petitioner forcibly had physical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

relationship with the de facto complainant and took some photographs also. Subsequently, the petitioner threatened the de facto complainant by showing the said photographs. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner forcibly had physical relationship with the de facto complainant and took some photographs also. Subsequently, the petitioner threatened the de facto complainant by showing the said photographs. He would further state that the investigation in this case is not yet completed. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 19/11/2021 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 EAST PULIYAKULAM POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE. POTHANUR POLICE STATION.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S. A.J.MOHAMED KASSIM Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.13117 CRL OP.21796/2021 Date :19/11/2021 JPA 24/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/