Rajkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.20767 of 2015 RAJKUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM, CRIME NO. 18 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT POWLIN SOFIYA RANI ..INTERVENOR For Petitioner : M/S A.THIRUPATHY Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.S.A.AJMAK KHAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.18 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 406 and 506(i) of I.P.C., and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner/A1 and the de-facto complainant was solemnized on 26.01.2015 and they were living under the same roof. After three months, the petitioner along with others harassed the de-facto complainant by demanding more dowry.

3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that earlier two criminal original petitions filed by this petitioner before this Court were dismissed as against this petitioner alone. Now, the present petition is filed in which, the parties are directed to appear before this Court on 06.01.2016. On that day, the parties appeared before this Court and the petitioner/A1 agreed to take back the de-facto complainant to the matrimonial home. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that on the same day the de-facto complainant went to the matrimonial home and she was brutally attacked by the petitioner/A1, his mother and one of his relative. Therefore, she gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Thallakulam against the petitioner. 6.

Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 27/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

akm/04.02.2016/ 2p-3c/jgb/dp/SAR-I ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.20767 of 2015 Date :27/01/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/