Thangarasu v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of December Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.23683 of 2016 1 THANGARASU 2 CHITRA ... PETITIONERS / A9 and A10 Vs The State rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, Crime. NO. 21 OF 2016. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.SATHYA CHIDAMBARAM Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.11.2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 5 (1)(a), 6(1)(a) of ITP Act and Sections 370(A)(5) and 373 of IPC and Section 17 of POCSO Act @ Sections 5(1)(1), 6(1) of ITP Act and Sections 370(A)(5) and 373 of IPC and Section 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w. Section 3(i)(w-1,II) 3(ii)(V)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act, in Crime No.21 of 2016, on the file of the respondent Police, seek bail.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioners are A9 and A10 respectively and their names were implicated on the basis of statement given by the victim girl. The first Petitioner is the owner of the house, which was rented to A1 in this case. A1 and A2 were arrested and released on bail by the District Sessions Court; A8 and A11 were released on bail by this Court and the bail petitions filed by A14 and A15 were dismissed by this Court on 20.12.2016 in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.23589 and 23548 of 2016.
3. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) representing for the respondent states that two minor girls were forced to go prostitution by A1 and A2 in this case and their life were exploited by the accused in this case and the investigation is still pending. He strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners, since victims are minor girls, aged about 13 and 15 and these petitioners have not only been identified, but their involvement has also been spoken to by the victim themselves and given a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the alleged overt act of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
sd/- 21/12/2016 / 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, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.S.SATHYA CHIDAMBARAM Advocate SR.No.83252 sm:GSV-PM:SAR 2:27/12/2016:2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.23683 of 2016 Date :21/12/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/