Dismissed

Sivanesan v. The State Rep by

Madras HC18 Nov 2024CRL OP/20828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MHC entertained a bail petition wherein first petitioner was accused of seducing minor and committing sexual assault under P.O. Act, IPC 366, 354 and 127. Considering threat to victim, court refused anticipatory bail and dismissed petition under SC Circular No 142/2023.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed and prayer refused.

Sivanesan Vs The State Rep by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20828 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.20828 of 2024

¶3

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶4

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 74, 351(2), 332(b) and 127(2) of IPC and Section 5(1) and 6 of POCSO in Crime No.11 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that, the first petitioner herein is a married person induced the minor victim girl and committed penetrative sexual assault and thereafter, abused and physically harassed the victim girl in public place, when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant and her husband, who are the parents of the victim girl, the first petitioner abused and threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, this case.

¶6

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the first petitioner and the daughter of the defacto complainant loved each other, however, the same was projected as a penetrative

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

1/4

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.20828 of 2024

¶10

sexual assault. He would further submit that the second and the third

¶11

petitioners herein are the parents of the first petitioner and further submitted that the petitioners are ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶12

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stating that the first petitioner is a married person, who had induced the minor victim girl, by making false promise of marrying her, committed penetrative sexual assault. He further submitted that statement under 164 of Cr.P.C of the victim girl has also been recorded.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the intervener raised strong objections for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by stating that the first petitioner is a married person, induced the minor victim girl, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant by making false promise of marrying her and committed penetrative sexual assault and also physically harassed the victim girl in public. He also further submitted that the first petitioner had threatened the defacto complainant and her husband with dire consequences.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

2/4

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.20828 of 2024

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and perused the materials available on record including the FIR and statement 164 of Cr.P.C of the victim girl.

¶18

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration, the first petitioner is a married person and the nature of offence involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶19

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶20

18.11.2024

¶21

stn

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

3/4

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.20828 of 2024

¶25

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶26

stn

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.20828 of 2024

¶28

18.11.2024

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

4/4

Sivanesan v. The State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivanesan v. The 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

Syed Uvairan Vs the State Rep by

Devaseelan Vs the State Rep by

Jafar Vs State Rep. by

P.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ayyanar Vs State Rep.by

Pushpalatha Vs R.Kothai