N.S.Sukanya v. State Rep 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.24885 of 2021 N.S.SUKANYA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPPUR SOUTH, THIRUPPUR CITY, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.20 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S SHAIKH MEHRUNNISA Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : M/S.D.ARUNKUMAR, Advocate 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 7 & 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act 2012, in Crime No.20 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the wife of the defacto complainant. Further, the first accused/Chandru @ Chandramohan had misbehaved the victim girl and tortured her with the help of this petitioner.. The petitioner is the mother of the victim girl. Based on the complaint was given by the father of the victim girl, a case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she is in no way connected with the alleged offences by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there was family dispute, a false case has been given. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the investigation is at initial stage and there is serious allegation made against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner had developed illicit relationship with one Chandru @ Chandramohan. He further submitted that the first accused had misbehaved the victim girl with the help of this petitioner. He further submitted that there is serious allegations made against the petitioner and the investigation is at initial stage. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it reveals that 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.

7. 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUPPUR SOUTH, THIRUPPUR CITY, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S SHAIKH MEHRUNNISA Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.24885/2021 Date :20/12/2021 TA-05/01/2022