Sundar v. State Rep.By

CRL.O.P.No.13425 of 2016 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.04.2016 for an alleged offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC in Crime No.8 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have committed rape on the defacto complainant's daughter. Hence the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working in Electricity Board at Pernampet as Meter Reading Man. The petitioner has already got marriage and he had two children. He further submitted that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he in custody for more than 60 days and that he may be enlarged on bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the defacto complainant is the father of the victim and that the victim lady is a deaf and dumb person, who is deserted from her matrimonial home and now she is living with her father. Taking advantage of the same, on 28.04.2016, when the petitioner was on duty, he is said to have given sexual harassment to the victim and at that time, the defacto complainant entered into the house and on seeing him, the defacto complainant and the village people were caught red handed the petitioner and handed over him to the police. He vehemently opposed for granting bail to the petitioner on the ground that very serious allegation has been levelled against the petitioner and that the

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

kal investigation is pending in this case and if the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and hinder investigation.

5. Since the allegation has been levelled against the petitioner is grave in nature, this court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner and the petition is dismissed.

01.07.2016 kal CRL.O.P.No.13425 of 2016