Partly allowed

Abilash @ Sanjai v. State Rep by

Madras HC27 Sept 2021CRL OP/15323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to petitioner accused under IPC 366A/POCSO 6, noting victim eloped willingly but refuses marriage. Bail conditioned on police reporting, bond execution, and non-tampering, citing P.K. Shaji.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of Rs. 10,000, photography, daily reporting for two weeks, and promise not to tamper or abscond.

Abilash @ Sanjai Vs State Rep by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.15323 of 2021

¶7

ABILASH @ SANJAI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AVADI, CHENNAI. (CRIME NO.465/2021)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S M.JAIKUMAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 366 A of IPC r/w 6 of POCSO Act in Crime No.465 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl went missing. The defacto complainant/mother of the victim girl searched for the victim girl in the nearby areas and was unable to find her. Hence the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police. On further investigation, it was found that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in love with each other and they eloped together. Hence, the case is registered against the petitioner.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the victim girl and the petitioner loved each other and the victim girl on her own volition went along with the petitioner and also the petitioner's family is ready to arrange the marriage of victim girl with the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the statement of the victim girl has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and there is no serious allegation made against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

5.A perusal of the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C reveals that the petitioner and the victim girl loved each other and the victim girl on her own volition went along with the petitioner and there is no allegation made against the petitioner. But, the victim girl is not ready to marry the petitioner. In such circumstances this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is 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 learned Mahila Court, Thiruvallur on condition that 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶21

(b)the petitioner 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;

¶22

(c)the petitioner 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;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(f)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]; and;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

27/09/2021

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶33

¶34

1 THE MAHILA COURT, THIRUVALLUR.

¶35

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, AVADI, CHENNAI.

¶36

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶37

+1CC to M/S M.JAIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.10617

CRL OP.15323/2021

Date :27/09/2021

CSK 05/10/2021

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

Abilash @ Sanjai v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abilash @ Sanjai v. 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

P.John Vs the State Rep.by Its

R.Manivannan Vs the State Rep by

Raj Shekar @Rajasekar Vs State Rep by

S.Ramamoorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajendran Vs State Rep by

Bhuvanesh Vs the State Rep by