Shakila Banu @ Banu v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 19.08.2024

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.19966 of 2024 D. Shakila Banu @ Banu W/o. Devanathan ... Petitioner / 2nd Accused Vs State rep. by:- The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai.

` ... Respondent [Cr. No.6 of 2024] For Petitioner : Mr.V.Suresh For Respondent : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate [Criminal side] PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of B.N.S.S.

PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused in Crime No.6 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER

The petitioner/2nd Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.07.2024 for the offences punishable under sections 316(2), 127(2), 64 r/w 3(5) of B.N.S. in Crime No.6 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant came to Chennai from Coimbatore for want of job and while she was charging her mobile phone at Koyambedu bus stand, under the guise of arranging job for her, A1 took her to the petitioner's house and the petitioner forced the victim to enter into room and in the room, A1 physically abused the victim. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.07.2024 and she has been falsely implicated in this case. She has not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. The petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has 2/5

submitted that the accused gave false representation to the defacto complainant to arrange for a job for her and took the victim to the petitioner's house and forced the victim to enter into the room, wherein the accused A1 physically abused the victim and hence the petitioner played a vital role in the commission of offence along with A1. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that A1 was arrested, the statement of the victim was recorded and investigation is pending.

5. Heard both sides and perused the entire records.

6. Considering the rival submissions putforth on either side, considering the gravity of offences involved in this case and also considering the fact that the investigation is at initial stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. 3/5

19.08.2024 index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs To 1.The Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Koyambedu, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.DHANABAL ,J mjs 4/5

CRL.OP.No.19966 of 2024 19.08.2024 5/5