Samuel v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.17731 of 2021 SAMUEL [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR SOUTH, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

CR NO.16/2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.S.ARJUN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 9(1) r/w Section 10 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Cr.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is serving as a paster in Bethel church, Tiruppur and he belongs to oppressed community. Since, the daughter of the defacto complainant developed love affair with a boy, the defacto complainant approached the petitioner and sought his help to reform her daughter and the petitioner is alleged to have sexually abused the victim girl. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the defacto complainant made a complaint about frequent usage of mobile phone by her daughter and asked the petitioner to check up her daughter's mobile phone and as a paster, the petitioner advised her daughter to concentrate in her studies but she made false allegation as if she was sexually abused by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner however, the petitioner is willing to abide any condition as imposed by this Court. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner had sent some sexy messages to the daughter of the defacto complainant and those facts were illustrated in the statement recorded by the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner and that the investigation is not yet completed, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed. -sd/- 08/11/2021 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 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR SOUTH, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

CC to M/S.S.ARJUN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.17731/2021 Date :08/11/2021 TA-17/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/