Umapathy v. The State Represented By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of February Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH and The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. SIVAGNANAM CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2053 of 2020 IN CRL A.107/2020 UMAPATHY [ PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCCUSED-17 ] Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY [ RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT / INSPECTOR OF POLICE, COMPLAINANT ] W6 ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI-600 023.
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.A.No.107/2020 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to suspend the sentence imposed in S.C.No.407/2018 dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Special Sessions Judge Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act Chennai and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.A.No.107/2020.
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the Memorandum of Grounds in CRL.A.No.107/2020 on the file of the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. R.SANKARASUBBU, Advocate for the Petitioner and of MR.K.PRABAKAR Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:- (Order of the Court was made by V.SIVAGNANAM,J.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred seeking to suspend the execution of sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment and order dated 01.02.2020 made in S.C.No.407 of 2018 on the file of the Sessions Court, (Special Judge for exclusive trial of cases under the POCSO Act,) Chennai and to enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the appeal.
2.
The petitioner, who was A17 in S.C.No.407 of 2018 before the learned Sessions Judge, (Special Court for exclusive Trial of cases under the POCSO Act), Chennai was convicted and sentenced as follows:
S.L.
No.
Provision under which convicted Sentence 1.
Section 10 r/w 9 (g) of the POSCO Act years rigorous imprisonment 2.
Section 506(I) r/w.34 IPC years rigorous imprisonment The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3.
Challenging the above conviction and sentences, the petitioner has filed Crl.A.No.107 of 2020 along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail. 4.
Heard Mr.P.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Prabakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.
5.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no strong evidence against this petitioner/ (A17) and he was convicted and sentenced only for five years. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 01.02.2020 and pleaded to suspend the execution of sentence and grant bail. 6.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor objected to suspend the execution of sentence and to grant bail on the ground that the 11 year old victim girl clearly deposed against this petitioner/(A17) that he had made aggravated sexual assault on her. 7.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record. The petitioner/(A17) is involved in aggravated sexual assault with a 11 year old girl. The evidence of the victim girl is very clear to connect the petitioner with the offence. The trial Court believed the evidence of the victim girl and found the petitioner/A17 guilty of the aforesaid offences.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed 21⁄2 years in prison, out of the total sentence of 5 years and therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. We are unable to countenance this submission because, this is a case, where a girl of 11 years has been sexually abused by a group including the petitioner herein for a period of time. Further, in Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230, the
Supreme Court has held that the relief of suspension of sentence is not an automatic one and that the presumption that the accused is innocent, which is normally available for regular bail, is not available in the case of suspension of sentence and that the normal rule is jail and not bail. That apart, this Court is ready to take up the main appeal itself for final disposal. 9.
Considering the nature of the offence, the manner in which the occurrence took place and the age and antecedents of the accused, we do not find any reason to suspend the execution of sentence and to grant bail.
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed for the present.
-sd/- 09/02/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT, CHENNAI.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W6 ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI-600 023.
5 THE SECTION OFFICER, CRIMINAL SECTION, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
C.C. to M/S. R.SANKARASUBBU Advocate on payment of necessary charges Order in CRL MP.2053/2020 in CRL A.107/2020 Date :09/02/2021 From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format cs 16/02/2021