Mrs. P.Varusha 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 P.Varusha ... Petitioner
Versus
The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, C2 Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore.
... 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.42 of 2025 on the file of respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *****
ORDER
Page No.1 of 4
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable u/s 3(2)(a), 4(2)(c) and 5(1)(d) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Crime No.42 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.01.2025, the respondent police received a complaint from one R.Maniakandan that his native is Sivagangai District and he is working in TAN Tea Shop near Racecourse Coimbatore. The defacto complainant when he left for work at about 1.30 p.m., Bishop Appasamy College and that nearby the gate of the College, the 1st accused, namely Karthikeyan had blocked the defacto complainant and had intimated about Bhooma Massage Centre which offered sexual services. The defacto complainant alleged that the said accused had stated that in Bhooma Massage Centre, sexual favours are committed and that defacto complainant shall pay certain amount towards the same. So the defacto complainant followed the lead of the 1st accused and he took him to the massage centre where the 2nd accused, namely Sarulatha was present and later, both the accused took the defacto complainant inside a room and introduced him to few girls who were in the room. It was Page No.2 of 4
further alleged that later one girl namely Suganya was left alone in the room with the defacto complainant and that she touched his hands and made him uncomfortable. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the records.
Page No.3 of 4
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
sp
6. Since the petitioner has committed very serious and heinous offence against the society, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 14.07.2025 sp To 1.The Inspector of Police, C2 Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.4 of 4