S.Vignesh v. Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A) and 406 IPC in Cr.No.70 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the defacto complainant and the petitioner was solemnized in the year 2020. Out of the wedlock, the defacto complainant became pregnant. The allegation is that the petitioner had harassed and assaulted the defacto complainant while she was pregnant. The further allegation is that the petitioner had received 9 sovereigns of gold from the defacto complainant. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant due to which a false complaint has been given against the petitioner. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the allegation is that the petitioner had harassed and assaulted the defacto complainant while she was pregnant. The further allegation is that the petitioner had received 9 sovereigns of gold from the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner had caused harassment to the defacto complainant, this case requires a detailed investigation and this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 19.12.2022 anu T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

anu

19.12.2022