Arul Selvaraj v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Arul Selvaraj ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Represented by, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No.32 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.Rajadurai For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *****

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable u/s 75, 79 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act, 1998, Page No.1 of 4

in Crime No.32 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's daughter is doing 2nd year B.Sc., Maths in Periyar Government Arts College, Cuddalore. The petitioner, who was working as a professor at the said college, attempted to misbehave with the victim girl due to her lack of attendance. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has been discharging his services effectively, without any blemish in his records and that the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the victim had a lack of attendance and she made request to the petitioner, but the petitioner, taking advantage of the same, he attempted to misbehave with the victim girl. Further, he submitted that apart from the defacto complainant's daughter, Page No.2 of 4

seven other victims have also been affected because of the petitioner, thereby statements have to be recorded from all the victims. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner and the fact that apart from the defacto complainant's daughter, seven other victims are also there and this Court had dismissed the earlier application filed by the petitioner and that there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 14.07.2025 sp Page No.3 of 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

sp To 1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

14.07.2025 Page No.4 of 4