Sunitha v. Stae By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twentieth day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.22222 of 2021 SUNITHA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STAE BY [ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ] THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ORELANPET POLICE STATION, PUDUCHERRY.

(CR.NO.163/2021) For Petitioner : M/S. S.XAVIER FELIX Advocate For Respondent : MR.V.BALAMURUGANE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [PONDICHERRY] PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.05.2021 for the offences under Section Sections 3 (2)(a), 4 (2) (c ), 5(1) (a) & (d), 6 of ITP Act, 1956 and 370 (2) (3) of IPC in crime No.163 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner one Sunitha who owns Arya Beauty Parlour had induced the victim for carrying out prostitution in the name of body massage for sexual exploitation. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was no way connected in this case and he was falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is only running a spa, based on the wrong complaint the respondent police filed the false case against the petitioner. He further submits that she was suffering incarceration for more than two months from 17.10.2021. He would pray for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) would raise strong objection stating that petitioner induced the victim girl to indulge sex with customers who come for massage in Arya spa and he further submits that more than 15 customers are indulged in sex with the victim and investigation is yet to be completed. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

further submits that this Court grant some more time for conducting investigation. If she released on bail she may tamper the evidence. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the investigation is yet to be completed, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 20/12/2021 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 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ORELANPET POLICE STATION, PUDUCHERRY.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUDUCHERRY.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUDUCHERRY.

+1CC to M/S. S.XAVIER FELIX Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.15237 CRL OP.22222/2021 Date :20/12/2021 CSK 04/01/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/