S Latha v. The Union Territory Of Puducherry Rep By The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP No. 28798 of 2025 S. Latha Petitioner(s) Vs The Union Territory of Puducherry rep., by the Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Puducherry Crime No.3 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER:

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the even of her arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.03 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. The Inspector of Police CBCID Police Station, Puducherry. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Kripakaran For Respondent(s):

Mr.K.S.Mohandass, Public Prosecutor, (Puducherry)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 182, 468, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.03 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. This Court on 14.07.2025 had dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner with the following observation. " 7. Considering the overtact levelled against the first and the second petitioners and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for in these petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition as regards the first and second petitioners is dismissed."

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this the second anticipatory bail application and according to him while the Sessions Court granting bail to the first petiitoner, it has been observed that substantial portion of the investigation has been over, hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that investigation in this case is not yet been completed and the observation made in Sessions Court order is only concerned with the first accused. Hence, he raised strong objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Since it has been observed by this Court in the earlier order that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and also considering the fact that there is no change in circumstances, I am not inclined to revisit the earlier order passed by this Court.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petitions stands dismissed. 10.11.2025 gbi To 1.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane, Police Station, Chennai.

2. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

gbi CRL OP No. 28798 of 10.11.2025