IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of March Two Thousand Twenty Two

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.6026 of 2022

VIJAYA KUMAR

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

Vs

THE STATE REP.BY

[ RESPONDENT ]

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

ALL WOMEN POLICE STAION CENTRAL,

COIMBATORE CITY-641001.

CRIME NO.5 OF 2022.

For Petitioner : M/S.S.BALAMUKI, Advocate

For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

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

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the

respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 354 A1(i),

354 A1(ii), 354 D1(i), 294 (b) of IPC and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition

of Harassment of Woman Act 2002, in Crime No.5 of 2022, on the file

of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner herein is a practicing Advocate at Coimbatore,

the defacto complainant is a client. The FIR indicates that the de

facto complainant who entrusted her matrimonial dispute to the

petitioner herein and he has received a sum of Rs.40,000/- as fees and

not discharged his professional duties up to her expectations.

Besides this, it is alleged that the petitioner started causing sexual

harassment to the defacto complainant and used to abuse her, whenever

he see her in the Court campus.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

defacto complainant who came as a client, in order to extract money,

with an ulterior intention started making wild complaint against this

petitioner, he, being an Advocate, is always ready and co-operate with

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

the investigation, but he apprehends arrest without proper

investigation owing to the pressure exerted by the defacto

complainant.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the counsel

representing the defacto complainant/intervenor sought time to file

intervening petition. However, this Court, on going through the FIR

and the statement of the public prosecutor, based on the instruction

received from the Investigating Officer, is of the opinion that the

defacto complainant herein is more concerned with harassing the

petitioner herein rather than cooperating with the investigation.

Therefore, it is suffice to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the averments made in the FIR and the nature of

the offence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of seven

days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the

learned Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore, on condition that the

petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to

the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further

conditions that:

(a) if the petitioner failed to surrender before

the concerned Magistrate within a period of 7 days

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,

this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix

their photographs and left thumb impression in the

surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy

of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure

their identity;

(c) the petitioner shall report before the

Investigation Officer daily at 04.30 p.m., until

further orders;

(d)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence

or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e)the petitioner shall not abscond either

during investigation or trial;

(f)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

the learned Magistrate/ Tri