Ramesh @ A Rameshkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.05.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Ramesh @ A.Rameshkumar ... Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town, Madurai City, Madurai.
Crime No.10 of 2025 ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Zamil for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.10 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the 1/4
respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 75 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.10 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is working as Accountant in Devar Modern Rice Mill and the petitioner is in-charge for the account section. In the meanwhile, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner that she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the de facto complainant and the petitioner are working in Devar Modern Rice Mill in accounts Section. The de facto complainant misappropriated a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the Mill accounts. When the petitioner asked about the same, she prayed time to repay the amount on 26.03.2025. But, she lodged the present false complaint on 26.03.2025 to escape from the clutches of law.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant, both are working in Accountant Section in the rice mill. The defacto complainant has joined 2/4
in the said rice mill recently, but the petitioner / accused is working more than 7 years. By taking advantage of his position in the Account Section, he threatened the victim and demanded for sexual favours.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused, which are serious nature and the same is against the woman in the working place, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 08/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
BTR TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MADURAI TOWN, MADURAI CITY, MADURAI.
2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
3/4
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8514 of 2025 Date :08/05/2025 PR/28.05 .2025 4P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4