Madras High Court
CRL OP/29731/2017 of S.DHANAJAYAN, 33 YRS, Vs STATE REP BY, on 28 December 2017
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand SeventeenPRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPANCRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.29731 of 2017
S.DHANAJAYAN, [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
STATE REP BY, [ RESPONDENT ]INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUTHANI, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT CR.NO. 9 OF 2017.
For Petitioner : M/S.R.THAMARAISELVAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.R.SEKAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.9 of 2017on the file of the respondent police. He apprehends arrest at thehands of the respondent police for the alleged offences Under Section313, 498(A), 506 (i) IPC and he has filed this petition seeking grantof anticipatory bail.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and thedefacto complainant had loved each other and got married. Thepetitioner and the in-laws of the defacto complainant compelled herto abort the foetus.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submittedthat the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He hasnot committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and he is noway connected with the offences and pleads for grant of anticipatorybail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that on thecomplaint given by the defacto complainant, FIR in Crime No.9 of 2017has been registered on 15.12.2017 and the investigation is going on.
6. Considering the submissions made by either side, it appearsthat offence under Section 313, 498(A), 506 (i) IPC has been registered against this petitioner. The alleged FIR was registeredbased on the direction given by the learned Magistrate I, Tiruvallur.Now, on going through the facts of the case during the time ofalleged offence the petitioner herein married the defacto complainantand thereafter the same was registered according to law. Thereafterin the matrimonial house the petitioner compelled the defactocomplainant to abort the foetus. The petitioner being a Doctorcommitted the above type of offence which is nothing but atrocities.Even though the petitioner filed a divorce petition in HMOP No.41 of2017, before the Subordinate Court, Tiruttani, praying to dissolvethe marriage, that cannot be a only ground for allowing thisapplication for anticipatory bail. The circumstances in and aroundhappening in the matrimonial house needs some elaborate enquiry forwhich custodial interrogation is necessary. So this Court, for thereasons stated above, is not inclined to order this application.
7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
-sd/-
28/12/2017
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carriedinto execution by all concerned TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,NO.I, TIRUVALLUR
2 THE SUBORDINATE COURTTIRUTTANI
3 STATE REP BY,INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUTHANI, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.R.THAMARAISELVAN Advocate on payment of necessarycharges CRL OP.29731/2017
Date :28/12/2017
RD 04/01/2018