Allowed

S.Jegatheesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Aug 2016CRL OP(MD)/14063/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, considering a bail petition in a POCSO case where the petitioner alleged false implication due to land dispute, granted bail subject to strict conditions including daily police reporting and execution of bond, citing P.K. Shaji case law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions including execution of Rs. 10,000 bond with sureties, daily reporting to police until 10:30 a.m., and undertaking not to tamper with evidence or witne

S.Jegatheesh Vs the Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Eighth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.14063 of 2016

¶6

S.JEGATHEESH ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.1

¶7

¶8

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KUZHITHURAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶10

CR.NO.15 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.P. LATHA Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶13

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.06.2016, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8,17,10 r/w 9(n) of POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.15 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 04.06.2016, the

¶17

petitioner tried to have sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant. On complaint, a case has been registered for the above said offences.

¶18

3.The case of the petitioner is that due to previous enmity

¶19

with regard to the land dispute, the petitioner's name has been

¶20

falsely implicated in this case. At the instigation of the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant's Aunt, the defacto complainant has given a false

¶21

statement against the petitioner. He is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He is in judicial custody from 06.06.2016.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that on 04.06.2016, the petitioner took the defacto complainant, who is studying 12^th standard and tried to have sexual intercourse with her. Now, the statement under Section 164(3)Cr.P.C. is recorded. If he is released on bail, he will tamper the evidence and hamper the investigation.

¶23

5.Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate that the statement under Section 164(3) Cr.P.C. is recorded and the petitioner is in judicial custody from 06.06.2016, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶24

(i) the petitioner 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 Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil.

¶25

(ii) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶26

(iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶27

(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner in accordance with law as if the

¶29

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].

¶30

6.The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate, as to whether the petitioner is complying with the condition or not.

¶31

sd/-

¶32

/ TRUE COPY /

¶33

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDGE

¶36

THE FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT , NAGERCOIL

¶37

2 THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE SUB JAIL, NAGERCOIL

¶38

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶39

ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KUZHITHURAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶40

4 THE THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶41

+1. CC to M/S.P. LATHA Advocate SR.No.42541

¶42

PJL

¶43

JAM/08.08.2016/AAL-MPA/SARI/3P-6C

¶44

CRL OP(MD) No.14063 of 2016

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Jegatheesh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jegatheesh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthaiah, Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandraskar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dr. M. Natarajan Vs the Insepector of Police

Perumal @ Mahalingam Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Pandian Vs Palaraman @ Mokkan

Narayanan Vs S. Manuvel Jeyaraj