JEYSON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner / Accused in Crime No.48 of 2020, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Section 7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, seek anticipatory bail.

(2.) The gist of the case is that

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the friend of Balamurugan, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, they used to often have liquor together, which was not approved by the defacto complainant. Due to which, she developed animosity against the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated, though the occurrence is said to have taken place on 26.02.2020 only on 18.12.2020 at 11.00 p.m., the complaint has been lodged as a counter blast to the complaint in Crime No.980 of 2020. The defacto complainant, who was working in the Lalitha Jewellery had some inappropriate relationship and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home on 02.12.2020 and living with one person along with her daughter. The petitioner had taken steps to stop such activities and advised the defacto complainant to refrain from her activities, turn around and to live with her husband Balamurugan, as a family, considering the future of the child. Further, when the defacto complainant went missing from 02.12.2020 to 18.12.2020, the petitioner and his friend Balamurugan had taken steps to find out her whereabouts. For this reason, the minor daughter, who is under the care of the defacto complainant, had been tutored and a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner.