CRL OP(MD). No.17485 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Reserved on : 25.11.2021

Delivered on : 02.12.2021

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR

CRL OP(MD). No.17485 of 2021

Veeragandhi ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs.

State rep.by its

The Inspector of Police,

DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, Dindigul.

Crime No.31/2021. ... Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan,

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.Rms.Sethuraman,

Additional Public Prosecutor

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

PRAYER :-For Anticipatory bail in Crime No.31 of 2021 on the file of

the Respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of

the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 354

(A), 354(D), 509 IPC and Section 67 (A) IT Act r/w 4 of TNPHW Act,

in Crime No.31 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks

anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that one xxxxxx, Woman

Constable attached to the Keeranur Police Station, Palani Sub

Division appeared before the Chairman, Visaka Committee, at about

11.00 am, on 15.09.2021 and alleged that the petitioner, who was

working as Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, had

frequently harassed her by making allegations with regard to her

performance of official duty and also frequently sent unwanted

messages through whatsapp.

1/5

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

CRL OP(MD). No.17485 of 2021

3.The case of the petitioner is that he has never committed any

offence as alleged by the respondent, that the said woman constable

was not proper in performance of her official duties and the same

was questioned by the petitioner, that the petitioner had warned her

many occasions for her lethargic work, due to which, she has

preferred a false and untenable complaint against the petitioner,

that the petitioner is having unblemished service records and that

due to the said complaint, he has been transferred and thereafter,

he has been suspended from service and is facing disciplinary

proceedings.

4.Heard Mr.S.Deenadayalan, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

5.It is evident from the records that the woman constable has

appeared before the Visaka Committee on 15.09.2021 at about 11.00 am

and gave a written complaint alleging that the petitioner had been

sending messages through whatsapp, abusing and defaming her. The

Visaka Committee has conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion

that the petitioner has caused sexual harassment to the said woman

constable and on the basis of which, the Chairman of Visaka

Committee has lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police,

Dindigul, who in turn forwarded the same to the respondent police,

who in turn registered the case in Crime No.31 of 2021 for the

offences punishable under Sections 354 (A), 354(D), 509 IPC and 67

(A) IT Act and under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of

Harassment of Women Act.

6.The

Hon'ble

former

Chief

Justice

of

India

Mr.Justice.J.S.Varma, in Vishaka Vs. State of Rajastan case, has

observed “ The meaning and content of the fundamental rights

guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude

to encompass all facets of gender equality ...”

7.The Preamble to the Sexual harassment of women at work place

(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, says, “Whereas sexual

harassment results in violation of the fundamental rights of a woman

to equality.”

8.As the preamble to the Constitution of India contemplates

that equality of status and opportunity must be secure