Madras High CourtCRL OP/30066/2022dismissed

K.Maheshwaran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

2022-12-08Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi4 pages

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest pursuant to the Non Bailable Warrant has approached this Court seeking for anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the defacto complainant, is an accused facing trial in C.C.No.99 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 355 and 506(ii) of IPC. He would further submit that the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on 01.07.2022, due to which, a Non Bailable Warrant of arrest issued against him. He would further submit that the non appearance of the petitioner on 01.07.2022 was neither wilful nor wanton but due to the non compliance of the order passed in M.C.No.8 of 2013 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nilgiris. He would further submit that the petitioner has also filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.51 of 2019 against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.8 of 2013. Therefore, he seeks for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that since the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on 01.07.2022, a Non Bailable Warrant of arrest issued against him. He would further submit that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nilgiris in M.C.No.8 of 2013 that to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the defacto complainant/wife of the petitioner. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondent Police and perused the entire materials available on record.

5.Taking into consideration the facts of the case and submissions made by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nilgiris in M.C.No.8 of 2013 and also taking note of

the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08.12.2022 vkr

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

vkr 08.12.2022