V.Padmanandan, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Third day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.261 of 2018 V.PADMANANDAN ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.

(CR.NO.2138/2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 354-D and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.2138 of 2017, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's daughter, one Hema got married to one Sivagurunathan, who suffered with liver cancer and taken treatment at Ayurvedha Hospital at Mysore. At that time, the petitioner had make a friendly relationship with Hema and both had taken photographs. Now, after the demise of the said Sivagurunathan, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant's daughter to publish the photographs in electronic media and also made harassment to both. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, the case has been registered for the above said crime. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, he had not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the investigation is still pending.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel on either side

are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, the petitioner had taken obscene photographs of one Hema, who is the daughter of the de-facto complainant, thereby he threatened the defacto complainant stating that the photographs will be published through electronic media. As per the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) the investigation is at the preliminary stage. So, in order to complete the investigation, the photographs which were taken by the petitioner has to be recovered by way of custodial interrogation. Hence, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 23/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI PJL JAM/06/02/2018/PM-PN/ SAR 1 /2p-3c

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.261 of 2018 Date :23/01/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/