Suman v. State Represented By

Crl.OP.No.24494 of 2023 Crl.O.P.No.24494 of 2023 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.08.2023 in Crime No.165 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offence under Sections 417, 419, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and subsequently, altered to Sections 315, 417, 419, 341, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC, seeks bail.

2.The petitioner is a married person and he had a relationship with the defacto complainant. She became pregnant. There was a quarrel between them.

3.It is stated that the petitioner kicked at the stomach of the defacto complainant and the foetus was aborted.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was record in the accident register.

5.The accident register is very much available and it has been produced before this Court. As a matter of fact, it states that the petitioner had stabbed the defacto complainant in the abdomen. The medical records are also available.

6.The learned counsel states that the defacto complainant had written an agreement on 28.08.2023.

1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.No.24494 of 2023 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

vkr 7.This itself shows that the petitioner is capable of tampering with the evidence and also influencing the witness/defacto complainant. The copy of the agreement is not worth and the paper in which it is written. It has no legal value.

8.The petitioner claims he had paid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the defacto complainant. If he had not committed any offence, it is not known why he paid such an amount to the defacto complainant. This itself shows that the petitioner is responsible for the pregnancy and abortion. 9.At this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 20.10.2023 vkr Crl.O.P.No.24494 of 2023 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis