A.Prem Anand vs State

G.Ilangovan, J

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 354A of IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.742 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, namely, Anjammal is working as a customer care executive in a car showroom. The petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager for the past 5 months. She was regularly coming to the office between at 8.35 a.m to 8.40 a.m and the petitioner was regulary attending the office at 8.15 p.m and other employees were attending the office at 09.00 a.m regularly. Right from the beginning, the petitioner teased the defacto complainant and also made indecent comments. On 16.02.2023, at about 08.40 a.m, the petitioner made some indecent remarks and also tried to misbehave with her. It was also informed to the Managing Director. Thereafter, the present case has been registered against the petitioner.

This petition has been filed mainly on the ground that so far, no complaint has been received from the other employess against the petitioner.

On earlier occassion, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, to verify whether any departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner or not.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that after the complaint given against the petitioner, the petitioner appeared before the concerned Official and also tendered his sincere apology. Thereafter, he wanted to resign the job and left the office. Thereafer, no information was received from the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due some sort of communal issue, the managment wanted to take revenge upon him. At one point of time, the petitioner was transferred as General Manager to Thanjavur, on the ground that his community is not mentioned in his profile, at the time of joining the service. On that ground, the present false complaint has been given aginst the petitioner.

7.Perusal of CD file shows that not only the defacto complainant but also the other employees have given several complaints against the petitioner. So the contention on the part of the petitioner is that due to communal issue only, he has been victimised, is completely a false statment.

Considering the conduct and attitude of the petitioner and also considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.