Madras High Court
Rajini vs State Rep. By on 10 January, 2025
Crl.A.No.1592 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.A.No.1592 of 2024
Rajini ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirupattur,
Tirupattur District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tirupattur Taluk Police Station,
Tirupattur District.
3.Ponnusami ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled
Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to set
aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Division of Tirupattur
District in Crl.M.P.No.1248/2024 dated 26.11.2024 and enlarge the
appellant on bail in Crime No.604/2024 pending on the file of Inspector of
Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1592 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For R1 & R2 : Dr.C.E.Pratap,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R3 : Ms.A.Vinupradha,
Legal Aid Counsel
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the
bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2024 filed by the appellant who is
alleged to be involved in Crime No.604 of 2024 for offence under Sections
5(l), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the victim,
aged about 15 years, had love affair; that on 07.09.2024, the victim had
gone to the appellant's sister house; that on 10.09.2024 the appellant had
sexual intercourse with the victim; that on the complaint of the father of the
victim, the girl was secured and the appellant was arrested on 05.11.2024.
The appellant had filed a bail application before the Trial court and the same
was dismissed on the ground that the offence is grave in nature and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
investigation was pending, and therefore the appellant is not entitled for
bail.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that admittedly,
it is a case of love affair; that the allegation as to whether the appellant had
committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault has to be considered in
the trial and considering the fact that the appellant's further custody is not
required for the purpose of investigation, he may be granted bail on
stringent conditions.
4.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant,
however, would submit that that the appellant belongs to a different
community and if he is released on bail, he is likely to tamper the witnesses
and there is likely to be a disturbance to the law and order in the locality.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions,
would submit that since the appellant and the victim belongs to two
different communities, if the appellant is released on bail there is likely to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be a commotion in the locality.
6.Admittedly, the appellant and the victim had a love affair for eight
months prior to the occurrence. It is not in dispute that the victim had
voluntarily gone with the appellant. The question as to whether the
appellant had committed the penetrative sexual assault has to be considered
during trial. Except for stating that the release of the appellant would lead
to commotion in the locality, there is no reason to justify the further
detention of the appellant in custody. Therefore, the custody of the
appellant is not required for the purpose of investigation in the case.
7.This Court is of the view that the appellant can be released on bail
and he may be directed to stay away from his normal place of residence for
sometime.
8.Accordingly, the appellant is released on bail on following
conditions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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 District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur.
(ii)The appellant/accused shall stay at Tiruchirapalli and report before
the Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Tiruchirapalli daily at
10.30 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 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].
(vii)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered
under Section 229A IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 26.11.2024 in
Crl.M.P.No.1248 of 2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Tirupattur is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
10.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
vv2
Note: Issue Order Copy on 10.01.2025.
To
1.The District and Sessions Judge,
Tirupattur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirupattur,
Tirupattur District.
3.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tirupattur Taluk Police Station,
Tirupattur District.
4.The Central Prison,
Vellore.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
vv2
10.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
