Nirmala v. The Inspector Of Police

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Girl Missing @ Section 366(A) of IPC and Sections 6, 5(l), 17 and 21(i) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, in Crime No.645 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant P.Saravanan is that his minor daughter aged about 15 years was found missing from 08.07.2021. Based on the complaint, a case was registered by the respondent Police in Crime No.645 of 2021 as "girl missing". Later during the course of investigation, it came to light that one Karthick @ Siluvai Karthick had married the victim girl and had committed penetrative sexual assault on her at the house of the petitioner. Hence the case.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely roped into this case. He would further submit that admittedly the first accused Karthick @ Siluvai Karthick is relative to the petitioner and he has came along with his friend and stayed in the petitioner's house, other than, the petitioner does not know anything. He would further submit that the first accused Karthick @ Siluvai Karthick has been arrested and released on bail. He would further submit that the victim girl was secured and the 164 Statement has been recorded from the victim girl, wherein, she has not made any allegations against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case against her. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish solvent sureties and to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as a third accused in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is aunt of the first accused Karthick @ Siluvai Karthick. The first accused Karthick @ Siluvai Karthick had kidnapped the minor victim girl, married her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her at the house of the petitioner and the petitioner had given asylum to the victim girl. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending as against the petitioner. He would further submit that 164 statement has also been recorded from the victim girl. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the 164 Statement recorded from the victim girl.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel and also taking note of the 164 Statement recorded from the victim girl, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the POCSO Court, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that: [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

09.03.2023 arb

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

arb 09.03.2023