Madras High CourtCRL OP/17857/2021dismissed

Sangeetha v. State Rep.By

2021-09-29Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.17857 of 2021 SANGEETHA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARUVATHUR POLICE STATION, PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.

CR.NO.462 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S. M.VIJAYA RAGAVAN Advocate For Respondent : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506(ii) of IPC and 5(l), 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, in Crime No.462 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the distance relative of the defaco complainant and her husband had forced the victim girl, sexual intercourse with him. Thereafter, the parents of the de-facto complainant had arranged marriage to the victim girl. At that time, the petitioner's husband once again compelled the defacto complainant to come to sexual intercourse with him, otherwise, he will upload the obscene photos of the victim girl on the social media and also threatened her. This petitioner had supported her husband and threatened the defacto complainant. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she is no way connected with the alleged offences by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner's husband had forced the victim girl for sexual intercourse with her. He further submitted that 164 statement has also been recorded from the victim girl. He further submitted that there is serious allegation made against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On perusal of the 164 statement and there is serious allegation made against the petitioner and considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 29/09/2021 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARUVATHUR POLICE STATION, PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. M.VIJAYA RAGAVAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.17857/2021 Date :29/09/2021 INBA-12/10/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/