Allowed

Sabarinathan v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2021CRL OP/1936/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.O.P.No.1936 of 2021, the Madras High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of offences under the POCSO Act. The court noted the completion of investigation, the final report filed by the police, and the period of incarceration suffered. Bail was ordered on personal bond and strict conditions including daily reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, daily reporting, and strict prohibition on similar offences, absconding, or tampering with evidence.

Sabarinathan Vs Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 03.03.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1936 of 2021

¶6

Sabarinathan

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, (North) Tiruppur. Crime No.2510 of 2020.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to grant bail to the petitioner in connection with Crime No.2510 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Shreedhar

¶12

For Respondent : Mrs. M. Prabhavathi, Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The Petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.12.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 5 (j)(ii), 5(1) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act in Crime No.2510/2020, seeks bail.

¶14

The petitioner is the sole accused. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is a married man, has developed intimacy with the victim girl, aged about 17 years, and sexually assaulted her and thereby, she got pregnant and the foetus was aborted by the petitioner by giving abortion tablets and subsequently, refused to marry her. Thereafter, now only, the victim came to know that the petitioner is a married man and that apart, he is having intimacy with some other ladies. Hence the complaint came to be registered.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner and the victim loved each other. The petitioner is a married man, however, he has applied for divorce and the same is pending. He would further submit that the petitioner was under impression that the victim girl is a major and he is in jail for more than 80 days. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is a married person. On the false promise of marrying the victim girl, he had sexual intercourse with her and subsequently, refused to marry her. Now, investigation is completed and final report has been filed. Hence, she vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that investigation is completed and final report has been filed and also taking note of the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to 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 Judge, Magalir Nethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tirppur, and on further conditions that:

¶20

(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶21

¶22

(d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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];

¶27

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

¶28

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition
is ordered.

¶29

-sd/-
03/03/2021
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried
into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE MAGALIR NEETHIMANDRAM,
(FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT),
TIRUPPUR.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON, COIMBATORE.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, (NORTH),
TIRUPPUR.
CC to M/S.M.SHREEDHAR Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.1936/2021
Date :03/03/2021
MK:04/03/2021

¶30

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

Sabarinathan v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabarinathan v. 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

Kanagamuthu Vs State Rep by

Vasu Vs the State Rep by

M.Kannan Vs State, Rep. by

R.Muruganantham Vs the Inspector of Police

Silambarasan Vs the State

Shenthilkumar Vs State Rep by