T.Arun Pandian v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 7,8,11(1), 12, 16 and 17 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec.23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 in Crime No.33 of 2022 on the file of respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has assaulted the defacto complainant and also abused him by uttering obscene words. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and the 1st accused being a copracticing advocate and colleague has accompanied her and helped in registering complaints before the authorities. He would submit that the defacto complainant with an intention to harass the 1st accused and the 1/4

petitioner herein has lodged the present false complaint through his son with various allegations, which are not related to the petitioner herein. Hence, he is no way connected with the offence as alleged in the complaint and he is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that this is the second petition praying for anticipatory bail and he is ready to comply with any condition imposed by this court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner has played a main role in harassing the victim. He would further submit that if the anticipatory bail is granted, he may tamper the evidence and hamper the investigation. He would submit that now the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and also on seeing the conduct of petitioner, he might have tamper the witness and hamper the investigation and also the fact that there is no 2/4

change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

28.04.2023 rpp 3/4

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp Crl.O.P.No. 9403 of 2023 28.04.2023 4/4