Madras High Court
P.Prabu vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 22 March, 2022
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
P.Prabu,
S/o.Perumal ... Appellant
versus
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Hasthampatti Office,
Ammapet Range (North),
Salem District.
2.State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Ammapet, Salem.
(Crime No.46 of 2021)
2.Selvi,
D/o.Andhoni ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC and ST
(POA) Act, 1989, praying to set aside the order dated 22.02.2022 in
C.M.P.No.716 of 2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
Salem and enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.46 of 2021 on the file
of the respondent police.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Mouli
For Respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.K.Sivakumar
JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 22.02.2022 made in
C.M.P.No.716 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Salem, the appellant, who is the petitioner in the above referred petition,
arrayed as an accused in Crime No.46 of 2021 on the file of AWPS,
Ammapet, has prepared this Criminal Appeal and praying to enlarge him on
bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto
complainant and the appellant were loved with each other. They often met
and indulged in a physical relationship. In fact, they were leading a family
life as husband and wife. On 19.04.2021, the appellant told the de facto
complainant that his marriage is going to be held on Thursday and also he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
refused to marry the de facto complainant and by using her caste name,
abused and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, this 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 the allegation levelled
against the appellant had happened with the consent of the de facto
complainant. In fact, after she raised objection, the proposal to marry some
other girl by the appellant was dropped. Previously, for the same occurrence,
in the year 2003 itself, the father of the de facto complainant lodged a
complaint as against the appellant and after completing enquiry, the said
case has ended in acquittal. Now, after suppressing all those aspects, the
present case has been registered. Further, the appellant is in judicial custody
from 03.02.2022 onwards. Hence, he prayed for bail by allowing this
appeal.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing
for the respondent police raised objection stating that, if the appellant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
released on bail, he may try to tamper the witness. However, he admits that
during the time of investigation, all the evidences, which are all necessary for
proving the alleged occurrence, had been collected by the police and now,
the investigation is pending for awaiting the report from the Forensic
Department.
5. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant would
submit that, only after knowing the caste name, the appellant, refused to
marry the de facto complainant and therefore, the offence committed by the
appellant, is heinous one. However, he fairly conceded that the alleged
offence of rape has been committed by the accused with the consent of the
de facto complainant. Further, he has not denied the registration of the
earlier case for the same occurrence.
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
7. Admittedly, the de facto complainant, who is aged about
34 years, knows the consequence of every act committed by her. In the
complaint itself, she admitted that only with her consent, the appellant had
indulged in sexual relationship. Further, in the present case, the main
allegation levelled against the appellant is that, he refused to marry her. In
otherwise, in respect of other offence, she conceded that everything had
happened with her consent. In the said circumstances, the appellant is in
judicial custody from 03.02.2022 and as of now, a portion of investigation
has been completed. Further, the appellant is having a permanent residence
and therefore, the question of abscondance does not arise.
8. Therefore, taking into consideration of the fact that the
appellant is in incarceration from 03.02.2022, this Court is inclined to grant
bail to the appellant subject to following conditions.
9. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on
bail subject to the following conditions;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
(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
Principal Sessions Judge, Salem;
(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;
(c) the appellant is directed to appear before the
Inspector of Police, Dindigul North Police Station, daily at
10.00 a.m. until further orders;
(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 . S haji vs. State of
Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can
be registered under Section 229A IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
10. With the above directions, this Criminal Appeal is
allowed.
22.03.2022
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
sri
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Hasthampatti Office,
Ammapet Range (North),
Salem District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Ammapet, Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul North Police Station.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
sri
Crl.A.No.245 of 2022
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
