Arsath vs State Rep. By
2024 Latest Caselaw 21087 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 21087 Mad
Judgement Date : 6 November, 2024

Madras High Court

Arsath vs State Rep. By on 6 November, 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      Dated : 06.11.2024

                                                         Coram:
                                        The Honourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN

                                                    Crl.A.No.1102 of 2024

                     Arsath                                          ...Appellant

                                                            Versus

                     1.State Rep. by
                       The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                       Kuniyamuthur, Coimbatore City.

                     2.State Rep. by
                       The Inspector of Police,
                       Kuniyamuthur Police Station,
                       Coimbatore City.
                       (Crime No.1138 of 2020)

                     3.Nandhini                                      ...Respondents


                                  This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled
                     Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act praying to allow
                     the appeal and to set aside the order dated 08.05.2024 passed in
                     Crl.M.P.No.628 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.185 of 2022, by the learned Sessions
                     Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POCSO
                     Act, Coimbatore and enlarge the appellant on bail, pending trial of the case
                     in Spl.S.C.No.185 of 2022, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,

                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under POCSO Act,
                     Coimbatore.

                                  For Appellant            : Mr.M.Vijayaragavan

                                  For Respondents – 1 & 2    : Mr.R.Vinothraja,
                                                     Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                  For Respondent – 3       : Ms.A.Vinu Pradha


                                                         JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal arises against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.628

of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.185 of 2022 filed by the appellant/accused who was

arrested pursuant to the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued by the learned

Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under

POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

2. The appellant/accused is facing trial before the trial Court for the

offence under Sections 366, 343, 450, 376(3) of I.P.C; 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO

Act & 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and 3(1)(w)(i) r/w.

3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act. Pending trial, he had not

appeared before the trial Court for three hearings. Therefore, the trial Court

had issued NBW against the appellant/accused on 11.12.2023. Pursuant to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the issuance of NBW, the appellant/accused was arrested and remanded on

23.03.2024. The appellant/accused filed a bail application, however, the

same was dismissed by the trial Court. This appeal challenges the said

order.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the

appellant/accused is in custody for nearly eight months; that since the trial is

in progress, the appellant/accused may be released on bail, so that, the

appellant/accused could defend himself effectively before the trial Court;

and prayed for grant of bail to the appellant/accused.

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

respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the appellant/accused is a resident of

Kerala and that since the appellant/accused had continuously absented

himself from the trial, the trial Court had issued NBW against him. He

further submitted that the petitioner is detained pursuant to a second warrant;

that even on an earlier occasion, the trial Court had issued a warrant to the

appellant/accused, when he absconded; and that therefore, no indulgence

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis may be shown to the appellant/accused.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the

appellant/accused is now permanently residing in Coimbatore.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/de-facto

complainant submitted that the appellant/accused did not cooperate with the

trial and there is progress in the appeal only after the arrest of the

appellant/accused; that since most of the witnesses have already been

examined, the trial may be expedited and no indulgence may be shown to

the appellant/accused.

7. Considering the nature of allegations and age of the

appellant/accused and victim girl, this Court is of the view that the

appellant/accused cannot be incarcerated continuously as he has right to

defend the case against him effectively before the trial Court. However,

considering the fact that there is a possibility for the appellant/accused to

abscond and delay the trial proceedings, this Court is inclined to grant bail to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the appellant/accused on stringent conditions.

8. Accordingly, the appellant/accused is released on bail on following

conditions:

(i) The appellant/accused 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 learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court

for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore;

(ii) The appellant/accused shall report before the concerned trial Court

on every Monday at 10.00 a.m, until further orders;

(iii) The appellant/accused shall not commit any offences of similar

nature;

(iv) The appellant/accused shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial.

(v) The appellant/accused shall not tamper with evidence or witness

either during investigation or trial.

(vi) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned

Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis appellant/accused, in accordance with law, as if the conditions have been

imposed and the appellant/accused released on bail by the learned

Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2005) AIR SCW

5560.

(vii) If the appellant/accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

9. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the order dated

08.05.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.628 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.185 of 2022,

by the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of

Cases Under POCSO Act, Coimbatore is set aside. The learned Sessions

Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO

Act, Coimbatore is directed to complete the trial in Spl.S.C.No.185 of 2022,

as expeditiously as possible.

06.11.2024 mrr/ars Note to office:

Issue order copy by 08.11.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order

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