Karthik v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 02.02.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.296 of 2021 1.Karthick 2.Chitra ... Petitioners Vs.

State rep. by:

The Inspector of Police, Annadanapatty Police Station, Salem District (Crime No.2212 of 2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge to the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.2212 of 2020 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Ranjithkumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 363 IPC & Sections 81 & 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 altered into sections 370(IV) of IPC r/w. Section 81 & 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in Crime No.2212 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally nine accused involved in this case and the petitioners are A4 and A5. A1 is the husband of the defacto complainant. On 01.11.2020, the defacto complainant gave birth to their third girl child. On 15.11.2020, A1 sold the child to third parties through brokers for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not indulged any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that based on the confession of the co-accused, they have been falsely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

implicated in this case.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that A1 is husband who sold his girl child for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- through brokers to the third parties and in turn, the child was sent to Bangalore. Subsequently, the girl child was recovered. The petitioners herein are also brokers, who are ranked as A4 and A5 and A2, A3, A8 and A9 were arrested and they are still in custody. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has involved in heinous offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 02/02/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT, SALEM.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANNADANAPATTY POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. J.RANJITHKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.296/2021 Date :02/02/2021 ksm10/02/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/