Single bench of the High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail. The court rejected the plea due to the nature of the complaints involving harassment of daughters and terror caused to the children, weighing these factors against granting bail at the present stage.
Petitioner rejected; bail denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.2167 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.2167 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.31 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 354A (1)(ii), 354D of IPC and 11(1), 11(4) and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
22.02.2024
rjr
1/2
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Crl.O.P.No.2167 of 2024
rjr
Crl.O.P.No.2167 of 2024
22.02.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and IPC concerning harassment of minor daughters.
Whether the nature of the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. and the terror inflicted on children warrant rejection of anticipatory bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
C.V. Karthikeyan
The State/Mahatma Gandhi Child Protection and Sexually Assault Act
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
