Ayeesha v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Thirteenth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.11486 of 2016 1 AYEESHA 2 KAMALUDEEN 3 FAREENA 4 SITHICK BABU 5 YASAR ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 to 5 & 8 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

CR. NO.40/2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S M.JEGADEESH PANDIAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 506(i) IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.40 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Alavudeen (A1) promised to marry the de-facto complainant and had sexual relationship with her. Thereafter, Alavudeen (A1) demanded money from the de-facto complainant to go to abroad and with the help of her parents, the de-facto complainant handed over Rs.50,000/- to Alavudeen (A1). Subsequently, he went to abroad and refused to marry the de-facto complainant and threatened her that if she insists for marriage, he will post her photographs in online. Immediately, the de-facto complainant informed the same to his parents and sister, but, they threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. On complaint, case has been registered for the offences stated above.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the mother and father of A1, the third petitioner is the sister of A1, the fourth petitioner is the husband of the third petitioner and the fifth petitioner is the relative and there is no specific allegations https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

against them. Further, the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

5. Considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and accordingly this petition is dismissed. sd/- 13/07/2016 / 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, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

2 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11486 of 2016 Date :13/07/2016 AM/SK.SKN/SAR-I/18.07.2016/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/