Madras High CourtCRL OP/23656/2021dismissed

Shalini v. State By

2021-12-08Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Eighth day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.23656 of 2021 1 SHALINI [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 MURUGAIYAN 3 MANJULA 4 ANJALAI 5 LAKSHMI Vs STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

CR.NO.15 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.B.S.RAMESH 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 petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 417, 376(2)(n), 494, 506(ii) of IPC, r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 in Cr.No.15 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused had love affair with the defacto complainant and thereafter, the first accused had refused to marry the defacto complainant and married the first petitioner. Further, the first accused along with his family members had threatened the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that first petitioner herein is the wife of the A1 who was not aware of the love affair between the defacto complainant and A1/Elumalai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Further he submits that the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case and no way connected in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the first accused had love affair with the defacto complainant and thereafter, the first accused had refused to marry the defacto complainant and married the first petitioner. Further, the first accused along with his family members had threatened the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the investigation is at initial stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the gravity of offence committed by the petitioners, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 08/12/2021 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, THIRUVANNAMALAI, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.B.S.RAMESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.23656/2021 Date :08/12/2021 TA-29/12/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/