Allowed

M.Thanesh v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Nov 2020CRL OP(MD)/12079/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of offences under IPC and POCSO involving elopement with a minor. The Court imposed strict conditions, including daily appearance and prohibitions on tampering or absconding, referencing bail principles from P.K.Shaji.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and several specific conditions, including daily police appearance and prohibition on tampering with evidence.

M.Thanesh Vs The Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.12079 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Date : 20/11/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.12079 of 2020

¶7

M.Thanesh ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶8

Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. Crime No.34/2020. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ashok Padma Raj, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

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

¶11

PRAYER :-

¶12

For Bail in Crime No.34 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner/sole accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.09.2020 for the offences punishable under Section 366 IPC and Sections 3A, 4, 17 POSCO Act, in Crime No.34 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner fell in love with the minor victim girl, namely, S.Abisha and both of them eloped. Thereafter, the mother of the victim girl, lodged a complaint before the respondent police, stating that her minor daughter was kidnapped by somebody on 17.08.2020.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.12079 of 2020

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) states that the petitioner and the minor victim girl loved each other and the investigations are still in progress.

¶21

5.The petitioner was arrested on 08.09.2020 and even as per the 164 Cr.P.C., statement, there is a love affair between the petitioner and the victim girl. However, the victim girl is a minor. But the minor girl admitted the love affair and this being the factum, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

¶22

6.Taking note of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶23

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.

¶24

i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity

¶25

ii)the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶26

iii)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness.

¶27

iv) the petitioner shall not abscond during trial.

¶28

v)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].

¶29

vi) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/-

20/11/2020

/ /2020

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai - 625 023.

¶34

2/3

¶35

CRL OP(MD). No.12079 of 2020

¶36

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶37

¶38

1.THE SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL.

¶39

2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶40

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶41

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12079 of 2020 Date :20/11/2020 SJI TK/PN/SAR.4/20.11.2020/3P/5C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

M.Thanesh v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thanesh 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

B. Karuppiah, S/O.Balamuthu, Vs the Management of

Thangapandian Vs The Inspector of Police

Mohamed Nazar@Mohamednaser Vs The Inspector of Police

P. Kangaraj, Vs the District Collector

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

A.J.Kodisshvaran Vs The Inspector of Police