Dismissed

R.Saravanan @ Ragu v. State Rep by

Madras HC7 Jan 2022CRL OP/182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was accused of sexually abusing a minor, resulting in conception, under the IPC and POCSO Act. The court denied bail as the petitioner was involved in a serious offence with pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was not granted; the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.

R.Saravanan @ Ragu Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Seventh day of January Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.182 of 2022

¶6

R.SARAVANAN @ RAGU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶7

¶8

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLUR ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DSITRICT. CR.NO. 14 OF 2021.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S. S.B.VISWANATHAN Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections376(2)(n) of IPC r/w Sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii) & 6 of the Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Crime No.14 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had sexually abused the minor victim girl,who is aged about 16 years and as a result she delivered a male child on 04.12.2021.Hence the complaint.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case.Hence,he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner sexually abused the minor victim girl. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending. He further submitted that there is serious allegation made against the petitioner and he has already married other woman and having three children. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner is involved in a very serious offence and the investigation is still pending and this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶20

-sd/-

¶21

07/01/2022

¶22

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶24

¶25

1 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLUR ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DSITRICT.

¶26

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶27

CC to M/S. S.B.VISWANATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.182/2022

Date :07/01/2022

RVR 27/01/2022

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

R.Saravanan @ Ragu v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Saravanan @ Ragu v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sridhar Vs the State Rep by

M.Iyappan Vs the State Rep by

P.Gopi Vs State Rep by

S.Pushparaja Vs the State Rep by

Babu Vs the State Rep by

Prashanth Vs the Inspector of Police