Allowed

Muniram v. State Rep by

Madras HC2 Nov 2021CRL OP/20079/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to the petitioner, charged with offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and POCSO Act, considering the 164 statement indicated voluntary involvement and lack of serious allegations. The court imposed strict conditions including daily reporting and a monetary bond.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of daily reporting, no tampering with evidence, and no absconding.

Muniram Vs State Rep by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.11.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20079 of 2021

Muniram

... Petitioner

Vs.

State by: ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.19 of 2021)

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, prayed to grant bail to the petitioner pending investigation in Crime No.19 of 2021 on the file of respondent Police.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.M.Jayachandran

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner who was arrested on 02.10.2021 and remanded to judicial custody for the offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and under Section 5(1) 6 of POCSO Act 2012 in Crime No.19 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner/A1 has kidnapped the victim girl. Based on the complaint given by the mother of the victim girl, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has been jail from 02.10.2021. He further submits that victim girl on her own volition went along with the petitioner and had sexual relation with him. He further submits that the victim girl is aged about 17 years and the petitioner is ready to marry the victim girl, after completion of 18 years and he has filed an affidavit to

¶17

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

¶18

that effect. Hence he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the statement of 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded , in which, the victim girl stated that on her own volition, she went along with the petitioner and had a sexual relationship with the defacto complainant. He further submits that the victim girl has been secured. Hence, the learned Government Advocate has no serious objection to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶20

This Court is of the view that on perusal of the 164 statement, there is no serious allegation made against the petitioner, on her own volition, she went along with the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to marry the victim girl after the completion of 18 years and he also filed an affidavit to that effect and also considering the fact that the victim girl has been secured and further considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

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 learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, and on further condition that:

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(e)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;

¶27

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

¶28

(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC. -sd/02/11/2021 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 SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT, KRISHNAGIRI 2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE SUB JAIL, KRISHNAGIRI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶29

CC to M/S. M.JAYACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20079/2021 Date :02/11/2021 APN 08/11/2021

¶30

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

Muniram v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniram 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

Ramesh Vs State Rep by

Faizal Rahman Vs State Rep by

Kalaivani Vs State by

Ramadass Vs the State Rep by

Dharma @ Dharman Vs State Rep by

Perumal Vs State Rep by