Geetha v. State Rep.By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 21.08.2020 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.12786 of 2020 GEETHA W/o.S.Rajan ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by its The Inspector of Police Kanchi Taluk Police Station Kanchipuram District (Crime No.2126 of 2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.2126 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Punniakoti For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 294 (b), 307, 506(ii) IPC altered to 294(b), 307, 506(ii) and 302 IPC, in Crime No.2126 of 2020, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioner Geetha is their neighbour, She had illicit intimacy with one Muthupandi / A1. A1 used to visit the house of the petitioner in the absence of her husband. On 04.08.2020, when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant and his father, A1 got angry and at the instigation of the petitioner, committed the murder of the father and has also caused injury to the defacto complainant. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that even as per the F.I.R. the allegation against this petitioner is that she had abetted the main accused to commit the murder. He would further submit that the petitioner is having two children and she is in judicial custody from 05.08.2020.

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

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner is the neighbour of the defacto complainant and she had illicit intimacy with A1 / Muthupandi, who visited her house whenever her husband was not there. The defacto complainant and his father being the neighbour of the petitioner, questioned the same, due to which, he was enraged and at the instigation of the petitioner, he committed the murder of the father of the defacto complainant and also assaulted the defacto complainant with knife. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested only on 05.08.2020 and the investigation is in initial stage, therefore, he vehemently opposes for the grant of bail to the petitioners. 5.

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, considering the submissions made by the learned counsels, and also taking into consideration of the fact the petitioner was arrested very recently on 05.08.2020 and the investigation is in preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6.This Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed accordingly. -sd/- 21/08/2020 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHI TALUK POLICE STATION, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT. ( 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL WOMEN PRISON,VELLORE CC to M/S. G.PUNNIAKOTI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.12786/2020 Date :21/08/2020 RD 07/09/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/