Dinesh v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.23157 of 2021 1 DINESH [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 RASAMANI Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, BHAVANI, ERODE DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.16 OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S.M.MARIAPPAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 498(A) of IPC later altered into Section 120, 420, 494 of IPC and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, in Crime No.16 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was married the first accused and out of wedlock they were blessed with one female child. Further, the first accused and his family members had harassed the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the first accused had demanded additional dowry and the defacto complainant parents had given 1⁄2 sovereign ring and Rs.30,000/- to the first accused. Now, the first accused had married one Divya/A7 and they were blessed with one child. The first petitioner is the brother of first accused and the second petitioner is the mother of one Divya/A7. Further, the petitioners along with other accused persons had harassed the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there was dispute between the first accused and the defacto complainant, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners along with other accused persons had harassed the defacto complainant. He further submitted that there is serious serious allegation made against the petitioners and the investigation is at initial stage.

Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioners are involved in a very serious offence and the investigation is at initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 02/12/2021 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, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, BHAVANI, ERODE DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.M.MARIAPPAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.23157/2021 Date :02/12/2021 TA-27/12/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/