The seriousness of the accusations, identification of the accused by the victims, and the presence of incriminating materials can influence the court's decision on anticipatory bail.

1. Since there is common factual matrix, common arguments have been heard and thus this common order is being rendered.

2. Petitioners are members of Puducherry Police.

3. Out of them petitioner Rajaram has now retired.

4. Petitioners seeks anticipatory bail. Their details are as under:-

S. No.	Crl. O.P. No.	Name	Rank	Post
1.	225/15	T. Sundar	A-18	Inspector of Police
2.	330/15	V. Yuvaraj	A-10	Inspector of Police
3.	384/15	A. Anusa Basha	A-12	S.I. of Police
4.	657/15	V. Rajaram	A-16	S.I. Police (Retd.)
5.	840/15	B. Kumaravel	A-11	Head Constable
6.	841/15	R. Balakrishnan	A-15	S.I. of Police
7.	1331/15	G. Sankar	A-13	Police Constable
8.	2387/15	Selvakumar	A-17	Spl. Grade Police Constable

5. Learned Senior Counsels and the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case. Petitioners are not named in the FIR. Long after the registration of the case, based on the report of an Identification Parade conducted through video conferencing on 18.12.2014, petitioners have been implicated in this case. There is no concrete incriminating materials to include them in this case.

6. The learned counsels also contended that now that the identification parade is over, petitioners cannot interfere with the investigation. They are ready to co-operate with the Investigation Agency. Co-accused were already granted bail. A-9 Tamil Selvan, who was included in this case, based on similar basis has been granted bail.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner Rajaram also contended that the alleged occurrence was on 11.4.2014. However, even before that on 31.1.2013, Rajaram has retired from Puducherry Police Service. He has been asked to put on police uniform and was included in the parade and was also included as an accused in this case. There is no acceptable basis to include him in this case.

8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, Union Territory of Puducherry contended that at the identification parade, petitioners were identified by the minor victim girls. There is incriminating materials as against them. Their custodial interrogation is necessary. In the circumstances, steps were taken to apprehend them. However, they went underground.

9. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also contended that the petitioners are involved in child sex racket. They have no regard for law. They are like fence eating the grass. Possibility of they criminally intimidating the poor victim girls cannot be ruled out. If let out, they will interfere with the investigation and also flee away from justice.

10. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the petitioners have committed an heinous and inhuman act on poor minor girls. They acted like vultures. They are animals in police uniform. They have no respect for law and law enforcement. They are wielding enormous power. They are having clout in Puducherry Police. They have men, money and material at their command. Their role in this case and its magnitude have to be gauged through investigation thoroughly and truth shall be brought out. Their case is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Further, it is appropriate to handover the investigation to CBI.

11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, averments in the petitions for anticipatory bail, counter filed by the prosecution and the case-diary.

12. This case relates to Puducherry Sex Racket/Scandal involving several persons.

13. Two minor girls aged about 14 and 16 respectively were enquired by Dr. Vidya Ramkumar, Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Puducherry. It came to light that they were subjected to sexual harassment, initiated in prostitution by certain pimps. Based on the re