Anandh v. State Rep. By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The petitioners herein seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.173 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 354(c), 204 IPC and 66(E) and 67(A) of Information Technology Act and Section 34 IPC. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they have been falsely implicated as accused in this case. A3, A4 and A5 had been arrested and granted bail. Apprehending arrest from the respondent police, he seeks bail to the petitioners. 3.The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) stated that the petitioners are A1 and A2. The 1st petitioner herein is the Manager of J.J.Residency and the 2nd petitioner is the worker there. It is stated that the petitioners had fixed a small camera inside the electric box in the rooms of J.J.Residency to take photographs of those who are staying there and later shared the photographs to the disadvantage of those who stayed at the said hotel. It is further stated that the other accused had been grant bail after being arrested and being in custody for 57 days. These accused are the prime accused. 1/4

4.In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners denied the allegation that photographs were taken.

5.In view of the nature and seriousness of offences involved, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondent to take the petitioners into custody and report before this Court. If not done, strictures would be passed against the respondent/Investigating Officer.

6.List the matter on 30.11.2023 under the caption "For reporting compliance". 08.11.2023 gd 2/4

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

gd 3/4

08.11.2023 4/4