Allowed

Andi v. the State Rep by

Madras HC12 Jul 2021CRL OP/10180/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused under POCSO and IPC 366 charges. The court noted the minor victim's voluntary statement insisting on marriage with the first accused and released petitioners on bail with strict conditions including regular reporting and execution of separate bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered released on bail on receipt of copy of order within 15 days before Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Act Cases, on executing separate bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties

Andi Vs the State Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.10180 of 2021

¶6

Andi

¶7

Rajammal

¶8

Munusamy

¶9

Rani ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5

¶10

Versus

¶11

State rep by the Inspector of Police, Mangalapuram Police Station, Namakkal District. (Crime No.196 of 2021) ...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.196 of 2021 on the file of the respondent.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 366 of IPC, 9 of PCM Act 5 (1), 5 (j), (ii) 6 r/w. 16 and 17 of POCSO Act in Crime No.196 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.There are totally five accused, the petitioners are ranked as A2 to A5. The petitioners are co-parents of the first accused. The case of the prosecution is that the minor victim girl was forcibly married by the first accused. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioners.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The first accused is the maternal uncle of the victim girl, and the

¶19

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

¶20

father of the victim girl frequently consumed alcohol and had quarrel with the family members. Due to that the victim girl on her own volition insisted A1 to marry her. He would submit that the first accused was arrested and he has been in judicial custody for the past two months Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶21

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the victim girl on her own volition married A1 due to which she was pregnant. He would further submit that the statement under section 164 Cr.PC. has been recorded from the victim girl in which the girl has stated that she insisted A1 to marry her. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

5.Taking note of the facts and circumstances and that the victim girl had on her own volition married A1, as evident from the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶23

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Special Court for the Exclusive Trial of POCSO Act Cases of Namakkal. on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶24

(a) if the petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶25

(b) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶26

(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶27

(d) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶28

(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶29

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

¶30

(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]; and;

¶31

(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶32

-sd/-

¶33

12/07/2021

¶34

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶35

TRUE COPY

¶36

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)

¶37

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶38

¶39

1 THE SPECAIL COURT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF POCSO ACT CASES OF NAMAKKAL

¶40

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

¶41

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶42

CC to M/S.W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.7284

¶43

CRL OP.10180/2021

¶44

Date :12/07/2021 RVR 26/07/2021

¶45

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

Andi v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andi v. the State Rep by

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

Jegadesh Vs State Rep by

N.Dinesh Vs L.Surendra Kumar

V.Durairaj Vs kumar

K.Palanivel, Vs the Inspector of Police

V.P.Muthu Williams Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Poongodi Vs Iop, Villupuram