Logeshwaran v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.09.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Logeshwaran ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District.

(Cr.No.130/2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.130 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mushtaq Ahmed For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.07.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections Girl Missing @ 344, 366, 376(3) IPC read with Section 5(j)(ii), 5(l) & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 in Crime No.130 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had kidnapped the minor daughter of the defacto complainant from her lawful custody and thereafter, committed sexual assault on her. Initially a case was registered as girl missing and thereafter, the case has been altered to the offences punishable under Sections 344, 366, 376(3) IPC read with Section 5(j)(ii), 5(l) & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that the petitioner and the victim minor girl had love 2/6

affair, since, it was objected to by the parents of the victim, a false complaint has been given as against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner without understanding the rigours and consequences of POCSO Act, had entered into love affair with the victim minor girl. He would also submit He would also submit that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl are consensual in nature.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim minor girl, who is aged about 16 years and thereby, on a false promise of marrying her, the petitioner had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim minor girl on several occasions. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record including the statement recorded from the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

3/6

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel and also the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that the statement recorded from the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC), Tiruppur, and on further conditions that:

[a] 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 stay at Chennai and report before the Inspector of Police, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during 4/6

investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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.

30.09.2022 Sma A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J., Sma 5/6

To

1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC), Tiruppur.

2. Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District.

3. Sub Jail, Tiruppur.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

30.09.2022 6/6