Muthukumaran, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.5258 of 2019 MUTHUKUMARAN ... PETITIONER /SOLE ACCUSED Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.

Crime No.4 of 2019 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.B.N.RAJA MOHAMMED Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 448, 294 (b), 323 & 506 (ii) of IPC and under Section 4 of Women Harassment Act in Crime No.4 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a widow, whose husband was working as a Armed force constable at Virdhunagar and passed away before six years. In order to take care of her children, the defacto complainant employed in the housing loan consultancy, which is running by one Arumugam. On 01.04.2019, the petitioner, who is working as a Grade-II Police Constable in Kadambur Police Station entered into the consultancy and sexually abused the defacto complainant. On seeing that the owner of said Arumugam, the petitioner ran away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was admitted into the hospital. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police.

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

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any

offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that in fact the defacto complainant had illegal intimacy with said Arumugam and the same was questioned by the petitioner. Hence this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner is belongs to Uniforms Service and taken it law on his own hand and sexually abused the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that since the petitioner is police man, has taken a law in his own hand and committed serious offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Hence the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed. sd/- 08/04/2019 / 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,PUDUKKOTTAI, TUTICORIN DISTRICT 2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to Mr.B.N.RAJA MOHAMMED Advocate SR.No.59998

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5258 of 2019 Date :08/04/2019 TK/MMS/SAR-4/16.04.2019/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/