Sridhar v. State By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The petitioner herein seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.319 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 354, 354D, 509 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 66E of Information Technology Act 2000.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has been falsely implicated as an accused in this case. He is innocent. Thus, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. It is stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that petitioner is a mediator, who arranged house on rent to the defacto complainant. It is stated that the defacto complainant, had also paid an advance amount through the petitioner's gpay account. Thereafter, the petitioner and house owner had asked the defacto complainant to vacate. On 09.09.2023, when the defacto complainant went to take bath, the petitioner had taken a video in his mobile phone. It is stated that the mobile phone had been broken but video had been recovered. It is contended that further 1/3

investigation will be done and videos will have to be identified by the defacto complainant.

4. Taking all the factors into consideration, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

30.10.2023 gd C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

gd 2/3

30.10.2023 3/3