C.Anand v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.07.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.11553 of 2021 C.Anand ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Represent by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Mettur, Salem District Cr.No.8/2020 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the case in Cr.No.8 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested on 26.11.2020 and remanded to judicial custody for the offences under Section 366 @ 363 IPC and Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in Cr.No.8 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the mother of the victim girl, who is a minor and he lodged a complaint before the respondent Police alleging that her daughter was found missing. Hence, the petitioner was arrested by the law enforcing agency.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he further submits that the petitioner and the daughter of the defacto complainant loved each other and the daughter of defacto complainant left her home on her own volition and thereafter, she got married with A1. Hence prays for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the defacto complainant has been produced before the learned Judicial

Magistrate-I, Mettur. The statement of 164(5) Cr.P.C has been recorded, in which, she stated that the victim and the A1 had love affair and she left her house on her own volition and thereafter, she got married with A1. Hence, the learned Government Advocate has no serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court is of the view that on perusal of the 164 statement, there is no serious allegation made against the petitioner and further considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner and also the present COVID-19 pandemic situation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: (a) the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) before the Superintendent of Central Prison, Salem, in which the petitioner is confined and on such execution the petitioner shall be released from prison;

(b) Within a period of four weeks after the release, the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Salem;.

(c) In case of any difficulty in executing the said bond along with the sureties before the concerned Magistrate within the time stipulated above, the petitioner is permitted to file appropriate petition within a period of four week therefrom before the concerned Magistrate for extension of time for executing the bond along with sureties and if any such application is filed, the concerned Magistrate shall decide on the grant of extension of time for accepting the bond and sureties in accordance with law. Failing filing of any such application within the time prescribed above, the bail granted by this Court would stand automatically vacated.

(d)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; (e)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

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

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

(h)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]; and;

(i)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 07/07/2021 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 SESSION JUDGE, THE SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT, SALEM.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM [FOR INFORMATION].

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, METTUR, SALEM DISTRICT.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM.

CC to M/S.R.NALLIYAPPAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.11553/2021 Date :07/07/2021 MN-08/07/2021