V. Vinish v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Sixth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.4702 of 2018 V. VINISH ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KADAMBUR, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.
IN CR.NO. 5/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.BANUPRASATH Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 366 A IPC, in Crime No.5 of 2017, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner is said to have eloped with the victim girl, due to love affairs and made penetrative sexual assault on her. Thus, on complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner for the above said offences.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name has been falsely implicated in this case.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that the investigation is not yet completed.
5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
on either side are considered. It is alleged, during the time of occurrence, due to love affairs, the petitioner and the victim girl eloped with, from the scene of occurrence. After completing the offence, both of them were returned to the village, where they are residing. As of now, the victim girl is staying in her home. Since the petitioner has committed the offence with the consent of defacto complainant, this Court came to conclusion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail with some stringent conditions to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(i) the petitioner shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 am for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
(ii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
(iii)the petitioner 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 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]. sd/- 26/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
trp TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KOVILPATTI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TUTICORIN DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KADAMBUR, TUTICORIN DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.P.BANUPRASATH Advocate SR.No.4775 GJM/PMI/SAR-4-3.4.18-3P-6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.4702 of 2018 Date :26/03/2018