Senthilnathan v. The State By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Senthilnathan Petitioner(s) Vs The State by, The Inspector of Police, Ranipet All Woman Police Station, Ranipet District (Cr. No. 13/2023).

Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 to enlarge the Petitioner on Anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 13 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.Nanda Kumar For Respo kndent(s): M/s.R. Vinoth Raja GA (crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner/sole accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No.13 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Roobabai, the mother of the victim, lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 08.07.2023 alleging that her daughter joined the petitioner's Chemistry tuition centre in the year 2022. On 08.07.2023, the victim did not attend school, and the school teacher intimated the same to the defacto complainant. Upon enquiry, the defacto complainant came to know that the petitioner had taken the victim to Kancheepuarm and allegedly had intercourse with her on multiple occasions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are false and baseless. The petitioner is a reputable educator and has been running the Tuition centre for several years without any complaint. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an innocent and the investigation in this case has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and since, there is a change in circumstances, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police produced a copy of the FIR, a copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, who was aged about 17 years and also the medical report. The learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and need to be investigated further.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

6. On a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and the medical report of the victim, this Court finds that there is a prima facie evidence to suggest that the petitioner had committed a heinous offence of penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim. Though there is a change in circumstances, considering the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

jai

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 26-06-2025 jai To 1.The Inspector of Police, Ranipet All Woman Police Station, Ranipet District.

2. The Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranipet.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.