Pandiyaraj vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7782 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7782 Mad
Judgement Date : 13 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Pandiyaraj vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 13 April, 2022

                                                                                    Crl.A.No.379 of 2022



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 13.04.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

                                                Crl.A.No.379 of 2022

                     Pandiyaraj                                                ... Appellant/Accused

                                                            vs.

                     1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Kottakuppam Division,
                       Villupuram District
                     2.The State Rep. by
                       The Station House Officer,
                       All Women Police Station,
                       Kottakuppam,
                       Villupuram District
                     3.Amutha                                            ...     Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule
                     Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 praying
                     to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2022 dated 24.03.2022
                     on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
                     Cases under POCSO Act, Villupuram, Villupuram District and enlarge the
                     appellant on bail in Crime No.6 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent
                     police.




                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 Crl.A.No.379 of 2022



                                  For Appellant             : Mr.E.Kannadasan
                                                              for Mr.M.Machavatharan

                                  For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
                                                          Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                  For Respondent-3          :   Mrs.Amutha (party in person)

                                                     JUDGMENT

Being dissatisfied with the order dated 24.03.2022 made in

Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2022, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special

Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Villupuram, the

appellant, who is the accused in Crime No.6 of 2022 on the file of All

Women Police Station, Kottakuppam, has preferred this appeal praying to

set aside the above said order dated 24.03.2022 and to enlarge him on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is

the mother of the victim child. On 22.02.2022 around 8.00 p.m., while at the

time the victim child was in Thiruvakkarai Perumbakkam main road, the

appellant herein came there in two wheeler and after threatening the victim

child as he is going to murder the parents of the victim child, compelled and

brought her to some other place. Later, he torn the shirt owned by the victim

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2022

child and after pulling her hands, bite the victim child and also he gave kiss

to her. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

submit that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely

implicated in this case. He would further submit that due to the previous

enmity, the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint against this

appellant and later, after registering the case, he is in the judicial custody

from 24.02.2022. The trial court without considering those aspects,

dismissed the petition filed by the appellant and therefore, the appellant is

before this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for

the respondent/Police raised objection stating that investigation is pending.

However he admits that as of now, statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

has been recorded from the victim child and also both the accused and the

victim child subjected to the medical examination.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2022

5. Notice under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act has been served

to the defacto complainant and later, on 12.04.2022, while at the time this

appeal was posted for hearing, the defacto complainant brought to this Court

by one, R.Devi, Head Constable of All Women Police Station, Kottakuppam.

While at the time of enquiry, the defacto complainant was deposed that her

daughter often got headaches, and later due to the reason that she was fell

into the water, she was died. However, she gave no objection for enlarging

the appellant on bail.

6. Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on

either side are considered.

7. The respondent police registered a case as against the

appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 323, 354(A), 506(i)

of IPC r/w Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 subsequently altered into Sections

366, 323, 354(A), 506(i) of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, Sections

3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 2015. As of now, portion of investigation has been

completed. Further, the appellant is in the judicial custody from 24.02.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2022

onwards. The defacto complainant has not raised any objection in allowing

this appeal. Further, both the accused and the victim child already subjected

into medical examination. Moreover, the appellant is not having any

previous antecedents.

8. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the above said

aspects, particularly on considering the period of incarceration, this Court is

inclined to grant bail to the appellant by allowing this criminal appeal.

9. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail

subject to the following conditions;

(a) the appellant 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 learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Villupuram, Villupuram District

(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2022

(d) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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];

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

In the result, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Villupuram,

Villupuram District in Crl.M.P.No.492 of 2022 dated 24.03.2022 is set

aside and the Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2022

13.04.2022

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok

R. PONGIAPPAN, J.

lok To

1.The learned Sessions Judge,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.379 of 2022