Thamim Feroz v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty First day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24250 of 2021 THAMIM FEROZ [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W27, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, 283, ARCOT RAOD, OTTAGAPALAYAM, SOMASUNDARA BHARATHI NAGAR, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI 600026 (CRIME NO.15 OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S.RAHUL JAGANNATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : MR.M.MOHAMMED RAFI Advocate 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 Section 352, 354A, 354C and 509 IPC in Cr.No.
15 of 2021 on the file of the 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 harassed her both physically and mentally by demanding dowry. It is also alleged that the petitioner has illegal intimacy with some others girls and used to blackmail the victim girls by showing the footage of the camera that was fixed in his bed room. Due to the cruel behaviour of the petitioner, the defacto complainant was living separately along with her parents. Thereafter, when his activities was questioned by the defacto complainant, he abused her and her family members in filthy language and assaulted her brother and father. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on the false complaint given by the defacto complainant, he was implicated in this case. He further submits that the defacto complainant is well versed in I.T operations and with the help of her own knowledge, she used a tool called recovery professional demo to recover the deleted photographs from the petitioner's laptop and wrongly misused against this petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the Intervener submitted that the petitioner married the defacto complainant in the year 2017 and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a child and they lived together. Thereafter, there was some misunderstanding between them and subsequently, the defacto complainant found that the petitioner is having contact with his girl friends and blackmailing them by showing the footage that was recorded by the camera fixed in his bed room and also came to know that the petitioner is also having the photographs of the defacto complainant when she was with her husband/petitioner and used to blackmail her that he would release the videos of her in the social media. He also alleged to have demanded dowry and harassed her both physically and mentally. Hence, they vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. On perusing the records which reveal that the petitioner has illegal contact with some girls and used to blackmail them by showing the footage of his camera fixed in his bedroom, so also with his wife, and considering that the photographs of the victim girls are with the petitioner's laptop and if he is released on bail, he would tamper the evidence. In such circumstances, the case requires detailed investigation, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.
-sd/- 21/12/2021 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, W27, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, 283, ARCOT ROAD, OTTAGAPALAYAM, SOMASUNDARA BHARATHI NAGAR, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI 600026.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1CC to M/S.RAHUL JAGANNATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.15226 CRL OP.24250/2021 Date :21/12/2021 CSK 03/01/2022