Velusamy v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twentieth day of December Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.33694 of 2019 1 VELUSAMY [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 THILAGAVATHY Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THUDIYAMUR, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

CR.NO.43/2019.

For Petitioner : M/S.N.SUDHARSAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.THANKIRA Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S. B.BHUVANESHWARI Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who apprehends arrest on the hands of respondent police for the offence alleged U/s 498A, 506(i) IPC r/w Sec.4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No.43 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner father in law of the of the defacto complainant on 16.09.2004 and after the marriage, some family dispute arose between them. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner's son filed HMOP.No.39 of 2009 before the Family Court and the first petitioner's son is also having an illegal affair with another girl.

Hence, the defacto complainant lodged this complaint before the respondent police. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the defacto complainant has foisted a false case against these petitioners and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/defacto complainant produced photographs, which shows that after marriage the first petitioner son had illegal intimacy with another girl. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent states that the first petitioner's son got married with another girl and cheated the defacto complainant hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases and also it is seen that the first petitioner's son allegedly cheated the defacto complainant by allegedly marrying another girl and the petitioner and second petitioner sister used filthy language against the defacto complainant, hence the respondent has registered a case against these petitioners. Taking note of the nature of offence committed by these petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. -sd/- 20/12/2019 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THUDIYAMUR, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.N.SUDHARSAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.33694/2019 Date :20/12/2019 cs 26/12/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/