Dismissed

Lakshmi Devi.T v. State Rep by

Madras HC16 Nov 2021CRL OP/21139/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed in respect of alleged offences under Sections 292(A), 450, 376(2)(n), 506(ii) IPC, Section 67 IT Act and Section 4 TN Prohibition of harassment of Women Act. The Court dismissed the petition due to the gravity of the offence and absence of change in circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petition stays in force.

Lakshmi Devi.T Vs State Rep by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21139 of 2021

¶7

LAKSHMI DEVI.T [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT CR NO.15/2021

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.C.S.SARAVANAN Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : S.SUGENDRAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 292(A), 450, 376(2)(n), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of harassment of Women Act in Cr.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 is an Advocate and the petitioner is his wife. The defacto complainant approached A1 for divorce case and thereafter, A1 developed illegal intimacy with the defacto complainant and took obscene photographs and forwarded to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to have threatened the defacto complainant by sending the obscene photographs to her and also demanded huge money.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶16

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

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the petitioner sent the obscene photographs to the defacto complainant and demanded huge money. This is the second bail application of the petitioner.

¶18

5.Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

¶20

-sd/-

¶21

16/11/2021

¶22

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶25

¶26

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

¶27

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

CC to M/S.C.S.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.21139/2021

Date :16/11/2021

APN 29/11/2021

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

Lakshmi Devi.T v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Devi.T v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.N.Kannan, Vs The Assistant Engineer

D.Sivagami Sundari Vs The Authorisation committee

Jamal@Jamaludeen Vs State Rep. by

Dr.N.Veerappan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Sellamuthu Vs The Director of Matriculation Schools

B.R.Velu Achari Vs The State of Tamil Nadu