Balamurugan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 22538 Mad

                                                                         Crl.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021



                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATE : 17.11.2021

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI

                                            Crl.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021
                Balamurugan                                                .. Appellant
                                                      Vs.
                State through,
                1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                   Aruppukottai Sub Division,
                   Virudhunagar District.


                2.The Inspector of Police,
                   All Women Police Station,
                   Arupukottai,
                   Virudhunagar District.
                   In Crime No.11 of 2021.

                3.Muthumari                                                .. Respondents
                Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A (2) of Scheduled
                Caste/Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, as amended by Act 1 of 2015, to call for
                the records in Crl.M.P.No.858 of 2021, on the file of the Special Court for
                Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, 2012, Virudhunagar District at
                Srivilliputhur, dated 12.10.2021 and to set aside the same and enlarge the
                appellant on bail in Crime No.11 of 2021, on the file of the second respondent
                police.

               1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    Crl.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

                                            For Appellant           : Mr.A.Uthayakumar
                                            For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.K.Sanjay Gandhi
                                                                      Government Advocate

                                                            JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.858

of 2021, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under

POCSO Act, 2012, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, dated 12.10.2021

and to grant bail to the appellant.

2. A case against the appellant is that the petitioner by giving a false

promise of marriage, deceived the victim child aged about 16 years and

committed an aggravated penetrative sexual assault, criminally intimidated

her not to divulge the same to the others. The victim child became pregnant

and she gave birth to a female child. A case in Crime No.11 of 2021 was

registered against the appellant under Sections 363, 376(3), 506(i) of IPC and

Section 5(1)(j)(ii) r/w. Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w)(i),

3 (2)(va) of the Scheduled caste and the Scheduled Tribes Act by the second

respondent Police. The appellant was arrested on 19.08.2021 and he filed a

bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.858 of 2021 before the Sessions Court. That

petition was dismissed on 12.10.2021. Against which, the appellant has

preferred this appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

3. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the there was a love

affair between the appellant and the victim for a short period, then, the victim

had relationship with some other persons and the appellant stopped the

relationship with the victim. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the

year 2020, but, the F.I.R was registered only on 18.08.2021. There is an

inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Originally the F.I.R. was registered

under the provision of I.P.C. and POCSO Act. Subsequently, the provision of

Scheduled caste and the Scheduled Tribes Act, was added to the charges. The

appellant is in custody for the past 91 days and prayed the appeal to be

allowed.

4. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the victim is only

16 years old and she belonged to SC / ST Community. The appellant by

giving a false promise of marriage, forcibly committed a sexual assault. This

appellant is having one previous case in Crime No.15 of 2021. The

prosecution fairly admitted that the charge sheet was not yet filed and prayed

the petition to be dismissed.

5.Though the name of the third respondent was printed in the cause

list, none appears on behalf of the third respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

6.It is seen that the appellant is in custody for the past 91 days and

charge sheet was not yet filed. In the above circumstances, the appellant is

entitled for bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Criminal Appeal

is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be released on bailon the following

conditions:

(i) the appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, 2012, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, 2012, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, may obtain a copy of any valid identity proof to ensure their identity.

(iii) On release, the appellant should stay in Madurai District and to sign before the South Gate Police Station, Madurai, daily at 10:30 a.m, until further orders. The appellant should not enter in Virudhunagar District, until further orders.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

(iv) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

(v) the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation and the appellant shall appear before the second respondent and Court both during investigation and trial, as and when required.

(vi) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant 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].

                                                                                               17.11.2021

                Index    : Yes/No
                Internet : Yes/No
                Ls

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

R.THARANI, J.

Ls

To

1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, 2012, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai Sub Division, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arupukottai, Virudhunagar District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Copy to The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai.

Crl.A.(MD)No.443 of 2021

17.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis