Madras High Court
Ravikumar vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 9 June, 2023
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 09.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. SIVAGNANAM
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
Ravikumar ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Trichy Road, near Collectorate Office,
Namakkal District.
2. State by
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Rasipuram,
Namakkal
Cr.No.18 of 2021
3. Sarathy
Legal cum Protection Officer,
District Child Protection Officer
Unit, Namakkal District
4. Tmt.Sagayamary
(R-4-impleaded as per the order
of the court made in Crl.M.P.No.
71/2023 by order dated 17.3.2023
and name amended as per order
of this Court in Crl.M.P.No.6243
of 2023 dt.28.4.2023. ... Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST POA Act, 1989
amended in 2016) to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.1198/2022 dated
7.10.2022 by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court) at Namakkal and to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
allow the appeal and to enlarge the appellant on bail in connection with the case
in Cr.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, APP
for R1 and R2
R3- notice served, none appeared
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed in
order in Crl.M.P.No.1198/2022, dated 7.10.2022 by the Sessions Judge (Fast
Track Mahila Court) at Namakkal and to allow the appeal and to enlarge the
appellant on bail in connection with the case in Cr.No.18 of 2021 on the file of
the respondent police.
2. The facts leading to filing of this Criminal Appeal are as follows;
(i) The appellant was prosecuted by the respondent police, based on a
complaint given by one Sarathy, Legal cum Protection Officer, District Child
Protection Officer Unit, Namakkal District in Cr.No.18 of 2021 for the offences
punishable under sections 5(1), 5(j)(ii), 5(n) r/w.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and
3(i)(w)(i) of SC/ST POA Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
(ii) It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has committed
aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl aged 13 years, due to
which, she became pregnant.
(iii) Pursuant to which, the case has been charge sheeted and taken on file
in Spl.C.C.No.36 of 2022 by the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge,
Namakkal and the appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
01.01.2022.
(iii) The appellant filed Cr.M.P.No.1198 of 2022 in Spl.C.C.No.36 of
2022 before the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, who, by the
order dated 07.10.2022, dismissed his bail petition considering the gravity of
the offence alleged.
(iv) Aggrieved over the dismissal of his bail petition, the petitioner has
filed the present Criminal Appeal seeking to set aside the impugned order and
enlarge him on bail.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
was arrested on 1.1.2022, pursuant to the complaint given by one Sarathy,
Legal cum Protection Officer, District Child Protection Officer Unit, Namakkal
District in Cr.No.18 of 2021 for the offences punishable under sections 5(1),
5(j)(ii), 5(n) r/w.6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and 3(i)(w)(i) of SC/ST POA Act. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
victim girl and the appellant have love affair with each other and despite their
love affair, the mother of the victim girl, gave the complaint. During the course
of trial, the victim girl deposed before the Court that she had love affair with the
appellant/accused and had sexual intercourse. In the circumstances, the
appellant is ready to cooperate for trial. Thus, he pleaded that the appellant
may be enlarged on bail
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the case is pending trial and so far witnesses
PW1 to PW12 have been examined and the case is posted for taking Doctor's
evidence and other official witnesses. Thus, he objected for granting bail.
However, he fairly conceded that the victim, who was examined as PW1 had
deposed before the trial court that she had love affair with the appellant and
had sexual intercourse with him.
5. Though notice was served on the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant
and her name being printed in the cause list, there is no representation for her
either in person or through counsel.
6. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material
evidence placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
7. Perusal of records would reveal that in Spl.C.C.No.36 of 2022, the
trial has been commenced and 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined
and the case is posted for further examination of official witnesses viz., Doctor
and Investigation Officer. Further, the victim girl had deposed before the trial
court that she had love affair with the appellant/accused and had sexual
intercouse with him. Thus, considering the nature of the offence and the
period of detention undergone by the appellant, I am inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
8.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.1198 of 2022 by the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge,
Namakkal, is set aside and bail is granted to the appellant and the appellant is
ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, before the learned
Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal on the following conditions;
(a) the appellant and the sureties shall affix their
photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the
Court concerned 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.1217 of 2022
(b) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness
either during investigation or trial;
(c) the appellant shall appear before the trial court as
directed by the trial court and cooperate for trial;
(d) the appellant 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;
(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be
registered under Section 229-A IPC.
9. With the above directions, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.
09.06.2023
msr
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
To
1.The Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Trichy Road, near Collectorate Office,
Namakkal District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Rasipuram,
Namakkal
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
5. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Salem
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
msr
Crl.A.No.1217 of 2022
09.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
