Madras High Court
M.Uthirakumar vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 January, 2025
Crl.A.No.1445 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.1445 of 2024
M.Uthirakumar ... Appellant /Accused
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3. M.Deepa ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to set
aside the order passed by the learned Special Court for the Exclusive Trial
of POCSO Act, 2012, Thiruvannamalai Dsitrict in Crl.MP.No.1229 of 2024
dated 10.09.2024 in Spl.SC.No.43 of 2023 and enlarge the appellant/
accused on bail.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Thiyaga
For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.E.Pratap,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1445 of 2024
For R3 : M/s.S.Sridevi, Legal-aid counsel
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the
bail application filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 made in Crl.MP.
No. 1229 of 2024 dated 10.09.2024 by the learned Special Court for the
Exclusive Trial of POCSO Act, 2012, Thiruvannamalai District and enlarge
the appellant on bail.
2. The appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant's bail
application filed before the Trial Court.
3. The appellant is facing trial for offences under Sections 294(b),
323, 376(AB), 506(ii), 376(2)(n) of IPC, Sections 5(l), 5(m) read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 3(1)(w)(1), 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. During the course of investigation,
the appellant was arrested on 18.02.2023 and subsequently released on bail
on 29.06.2023. After the filing of the final report, due to the non-appearance
of the appellant, a non-bailable warrant was issued on 04.08.2023, and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant has been in custody from 14.06.2024. The appellant sought bail
before the trial court, which was dismissed on the ground that, if he is
released on bail, he would not co-operate with the trial.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
appellant is in custody from 14.06.2024, which is sufficient punishment for
his non-appearance; that the prosecution has examined P.W-1 to P.W-3,
including the victim; and that to ensure his presence in the trial, the
appellant is willing to abide by any stringent conditions.
5. Though notice has been served to the third respondent/ defacto
complainant, no one entered appearance on behalf of the third respondent/
defacto complainant. Therefore, this court has appointed Ms.S.Sridevi as the
legal-aid counsel to assist this court in the appeal on behalf of the third
respondent/ defacto complainant.
6. M/s. Sridevi, learned legal-aid counsel, submitted that the trial was
delayed for nearly ten months due to the non-appearance of the appellant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and considering the nature of the offence and the age of the victim, no
indulgence should be shown to the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also submitted that
the appellant has not made out any ground for grant of bail.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the third
respondent/ defacto complainant and the learned Government Advocate
(crl.side) appearing for the first and second respondents and perused the
records.
9. This court is of the considered view that, for the non-appearance of
the appellant and for causing delay in the trial, the appellant has suffered
imprisonment from 14.06.2024 till date. Three witnesses including the
victim, have already been examined by the trial court. In such
circumstances, the appellant is entitled to defend himself effectively before
the trial court. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant subject to the following conditions:
(i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), with two sureties each
for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court for
the Exclusive Trial of POCSO Act, 2012, Thiruvannamalai
District;
(ii)the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb
Impressions in the surety bond and the learned Judge may obtain a
copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their
identity;
(iii)the appellant shall appear before the respondent police,
once in a week, until further orders.
(iv)the respondent police is directed to ensure that there is
no threat to the life and safety of the de-facto complainant. In the
event of any threat, appropriate steps to be taken.
(v)the appellant shall not commit any offences of similar
nature;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(vi)the appellant shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial;
(vii)the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witness
either during investigation or trial;
(viii)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
learned Sessions Judge/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 Sessions Judge/Trial Court himself as laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala
[(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
(ix)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be
registered under Section 229A IPC.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the
impugned order dated 10.09.2024 made in Crl.MP.No.1229 of 2024 by the
Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of POCSO Act, 2012,
Thiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
03.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
skr
Note : Issue order copy by 07.01.2025.
Upload the order copy forthwith.
Note : The District Legal Services Authority is directed to pay the
scheduled fees to Ms.Sridevi, legal-aid counsel appointed by this Court, to
assist this Court on behalf of the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai District.
2. The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3. Learned Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of POCSO Act, 2012,
Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
skr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
03.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
