← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/4732/2021granted

Vimalraj v. State Rep. By

2021-03-15Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 15.03.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.4732 of 2021 Vimalraj @ Vimal ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. By ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.987 of 2020) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.987 of 2020 on the file of Respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.B.M.Santharam For Respondent : Mr.M.Prabhavathi, Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner is a sole accused. The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.12.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 366-A of I.P.C. @ 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No.987 of 2020 on the file of respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has kidnapped the victim girl, aged about 17 years from her house, and also sexually assaulted her. Based on the complaint given by the parents of victim girl, a criminal case has been registered, and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.12.2020. Now, this petition has been filed seeking for bail.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that both the petitioner and the victim girl have loved each other and on the verge of majority, and the victim girl, on her own left the parental house and came to the petitioner's house, and the petitioner did not kidnap her. He would submit that the petitioner has only

advised her to go to her home. In the meantime, the complaint was given by the father of victim girl and he was arrested on 16.12.2020 and he is in jail for more than four months. He would submit that he is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence as alleged in the complaint. He would submit that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has only kidnapped the minor girl, aged about 17 years and also sexually assaulted her. He would submit that the investigation is still pending and the victim has also given a statement under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate. She would also submit that there is no bad antecedents pending against the petitioner and the final report has been filed. Hence, she opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. On perusal of statement of victim girl, it would show that both the petitioner and the victim girl have loved each other, and only the victim girl has left her house and gone to the petitioner's house. Inspite of petitioner's advise to go to her parents house, she has not gone to her parents house and on the complaint given by parents, the petitioner was arrested and the victim girl was also rescued. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner from 16.12.2020, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai and on further conditions that: (b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity; (c) the petitioner, after his release from prison, shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; (d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(f) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; (h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

-sd/- 15/03/2021 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 SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POSCO ACT, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, V-4 RAJAMANGLAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

+1 CC to M/S.B.M.SANTHARAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.3349.

CRL OP.4732/2021 Date :15/03/2021 EP-16/03/2021