Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/14047/2017dismissed

Hamesh Lal, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2017-10-26Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.14047 of 2017 HAMESH LAL, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASERY POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT For Petitioner : M/S.S.LEONARD VASANTH Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/accused No.3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(2)a, 4(1)(2)c, 5(1)a and 7(1)a of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, in Crime No.597 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A3 and other accused were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(2)a, 4(1)(2)c, 5(1)a and 7(1)a of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The petitioner and other accused were running a Massage Parlour in the name and style of Ponnu Ayurvedic at Krishnan Koil, Nagercoil. On search the respondent police found that the parlour was misused by them. Thereby, the petitioner and other accused implicated in the above said offence. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Parlour and there is no previous case pending against him. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner/A3 is the owner of the

Parlour and the co-accused/A1 and A2 were already arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that if the petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may tamper the evidence and witnesses or influencing the law enforcing agency.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 26/10/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADASERY POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14047 of 2017 Date :26/10/2017 SMA/RR-BS/SAR-2/31.10.2017:2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/