C.Ranjith v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.320 of 2018 C.RANJITH ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIVAIKUNDAM, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.167 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.SIVA THILAKAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.BHARATHI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/sole accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act No.32 of 2012), in Crime No.167 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that due to love affair, the petitioner eloped with the defacto complainant's daughter and had intercourse with her. Hence, the present complaint is registered against the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the victim girl were in love with each other and the victim girl instigated the petitioner to take away from her house and there was no intercourse as alleged in the complaint and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner elopped with the victim girl and had intercourse with her. She further submitted that the investigation is still pending.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. This case has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. At the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner is aged about 24 years, even after knowing the consequence of this Act, he has committed this offence. Since the victim girl is aged about 14 years, this Court come to the conclusion that if this type of accused is released on anticipatory bail, there will be a chance to tamper the witness. 6.Considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 09/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, SRIVAIKUNDAM, TUTICORIN DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.320 of 2018 Date :09/01/2018 PK/CM-VR/SAR-1/17.01.2018 : 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/