Jitender Soni v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.12050 of 2022 JITENDER SONI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W-10, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, FLOWER BAZER, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.03/2022 For Petitioner : M/S ILAYARAJA KANDASAMY Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(3), 384, 506(i) of IPC and Sec. 5(i), 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act 2012 in Crime No.03 of 2022 on the file of respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons had taken photos and videos while the 1st accused and victim were in close relationship. Thereafter, all the accused persons have threatened the victim girl as if not inclined to have physical relationship, the photos and videos will be published in social media. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and no way connected with the alleged offence. He would further submit that already the co-accused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A4 was released on bail and A2 and A3 were granted anticipatory bail. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent would submit that the investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a possibility to tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. He would submit that the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. would clearly reveal that all the accused persons had committed heinous offence to the minor victim girl. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the allegations and considering the fact that the 1st accused also had sexual intercourse with the victim girl and demanded money from her, and on perusal of statement recorded under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. also reveal that all the accused persons have committed heinous offence to the minor victim girl, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 19/05/2022 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, W-10, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, FLOWER BAZER, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S ILAYARAJA KANDASAMY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 7476 CRL OP.12050/2022 Date :19/05/2022 RW-20/05/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/