Mani @ Manikandan, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) Nos.4202 & 4208 of 2018 MANI @ MANIKANDAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN IN CRL OP(MD)No.4202 of 2018 AARTHI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN IN CRL OP(MD)No.4208 of 2018 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TALLAKULAM, MADURAI CITY.

(CRIME NO.7 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S.V.MAHARAJAN Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- COMMON ORDER Since, the petitioners in these two petitions are involved in the same crime registered in Crime No.7 of 2018, these two petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by way of common order. The petitioners/A2 & A3 in these two petitions, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) of IPC., and Section 5(1) and 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.7 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and A1, who is the husband of A3 sexually tortured the defacto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the case has been registered for the above said crime.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that totally 3 accused are involved in this crime. The first accused, who is the husband of A3 was already arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.03.2018. According to the prosecution, the investigation is still pending.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, one Karthikeyan, who is the first accused in the petition mentioned Crime No.7 of 2018 without getting consent of the victim girl, made forcible penetration and committed the offence. On going through the entire averments made in the FIR, the defacto complainant does not say anything about these petitioners. Moreover, before registering the case, the very same defacto complainant lodged another complaint on 19.06.2017 agasint one Karuppasamy for the very same offence under the provisions of POCSO Act. As of now, the prime accused, who is A1 in this case was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

Thereby, considering the facts and circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Mahila Court, Madurai, on condition that each of the petitioners 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (i) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m.

(ii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(iii) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners shall stand automatically cancelled and the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the

petitioners released on bail by the 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]. sd/- 21/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, MADURAI.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TALLAKULAM, MADURAI CITY.

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+2. CC to M/S.V.MAHARAJAN Advocate SR.Nos.4621 & 4622 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.4202 & 4208 of 2018 Date :21/03/2018 MKV-MM-PN-SAR 1/27.3.2018/3P-6C