Mohan Raj v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.27385 of 2022 Mohan Raj ... Petitioner Vs.
State,Rep.by, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Uthukottai, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondent (Crime No.11 of 2022).
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the Crime No.11 of 2022 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/8
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.09.2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 376(1), 376(2)(n), 506(i) of IPC, 1860 and 4(1),6(1) of POCSO Act 2012 in Crime No.11 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that the petitioner who is adopted son of A2 had physical relationship with her during June 2021 by giving a false promise and then left her. Later, A2 had assured the defacto complainant that he will arrange for the marriage of her with this petitioner and thereafter he has also committed forcible rape on her. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and a false complaint has been given against the petitioner by the defacto complainant. He would further submit that other than there being friendship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, there was absolutely no further physical relationship between them. The victim girl finding that the petitioner hails from a good family insisted to marry the petitioner. However, it was objected by the petitioner's 2/8
mother and his step father and thereby the victim has webbed a story as if there was a relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl and that there was a physical relationship between them and later coming to know about the physical relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl, the petitioner's step father also had sexual assault on her after she attained majority. He would further submit that the step father of the petitioner was also arrested and he had earlier approached this Court seeking for bail in Crl.OP.No.21611 of 2022 dated 12.09.2022 and this Court, after calling for the records including the CD file and also taking note of statement of the Manager of the Emarald Lodge, Arumbakkam, Chennai where the victim girl has stated that she was subjected to sexual assault by the step father, had granted bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the victim claims that the step father of the petitioner had taken her to Emarald Lodge, Arumbakkam, the fact remains that the victim herself booked a room in the Emarald lodge through on-line and she had pre planned to fix the petitioner as well as his step father in the case. He would submit that the petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2022 and he is in custody for about 70 days. He would also submit that major part of the investigation has been over.
account of the family members of the petitioner refusing for marriage and the complaint has also been given after the victim had attained majority. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that it is a case where the petitioner had deceived the victim girl and taken her to his house where he had physical affair with the victim girl and later the victim and the petitioner had physical relationship on several occasions. Later, the petitioner's step father, on coming to know of the relationship, also taken the victim to the lodge and had committed sexual assault on her after she attained majority. He would fairly concede that the statement has been recorded from the Manager of the lodge wherein he has stated that the room was booked by the victim girl. However, he would vehemently oppose to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record including the 164 statement recorded from the victim and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by both counsel, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 4/8
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 Mahila Court, Thiruvallur 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 report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during 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]; 5/8
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
09.11.2022 Vv 6/8
To
1. The Mahila Court, Thiruvallur
2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Uthukottai, Tiruvallur District.
3. The Central Prison, Puzhal
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
7/8
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.27385 of 2022 09.11.2022 8/8