Selvi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/07/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN Selvi ... Petitioner/A-3 Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sivanthipatti Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No. 159 of 2020). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.R.Karunanidhi, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 159 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 366(A) of I.P.C. and Sections 6(L), 17 & 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.159 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is wife of A-2. The minor victim girl, namely, Padhmabala was kidnapped by A-1 and also having sexual intercourse. The petitioner is concerned said to have helped A-1 for marriage of A-1 with minor victim girl. Hence, a complaint has been registered.

1/3

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not involved in the alleged offence. He would further submit that the petitioner is having 5 months old child.

5. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the minor victim girl has also given a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate in which there is no allegation against this petitioner.

6. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police and also considering the fact that the petitioner is a women and she is having 5 months old child, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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:

(a)the petitioner and 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 as on when required for interrogation.

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

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond 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]; and; 2/3

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

sd/- 20/07/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO

1. THE SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR POCSO ACT CASES, TIRUNELVELI.

2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVANTHIPATTI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7428 of 2020 Date :20/07/2020 KSA TE/JC/SAR-III : 22/07/2020 : 3P/4C 3/3