Sangeetha v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20713 of 2021 SANGEETHA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARUVATHUR POLICE STATION, PERAMBALUR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.462/2021 For Petitioner : M/S M.VIJAYA RAGAVAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. C.E.PRATAP, 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 376(2)(n) & 506(ii) of IPC and Section 5(1), 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 distant relative of the de-facto complainant. The petitioner's husband forced and threatened the victim girl and had sexual intercourse with her and took half nude pictures of the victim girl. When the parents of the victim girl arranged the marriage for the victim girl, the petitioner's husband once again compelled the victim girl to have sexual intercourse and thereafter he circulated the half-nude pictures of the victim girl, due to which the marriage was stopped. The petitioner herein supporter her husband and the petitioner along with her husband threatened the victim girl. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered against the petitioner and other accused person based on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner's husband had forced the victim girl for sexual intercourse and harassed her continuously. He further submitted that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and there are serious allegations made against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.A perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C reveals that there are serious allegations made against the petitioner. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 02/11/2021 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 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.20713/2021 Date :02/11/2021 INBA-17/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/