Allowed

Ragul Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Dec 2021CRL OP/20507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a POCSO case. The petitioner sought bail apprehending arrest for an alleged offence involving a minor. The Court granted bail with specific conditions, including surrender within fifteen days and reporting to police for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to execution of bond, surrender within 15 days, and specific behavioral conditions including reporting for interrogation.

Ragul Raj Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20507 of 2021

¶6

Ragul Raj ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Inspector of Police W-16, AWPS Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai.

¶9

(Crime No.13 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13 of 2021 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.J.Nissar Ahamed

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act in Crime No.13 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the minor victim girl. Further, they have got married out of wedlock one female child was born. Based on the complaint was given by the Government hospital authority, a case has been registered.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there was a love affair between the petitioner

¶17

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

¶18

and the minor victim girl and thereafter they got married out of wedlock one female child was born. He further submitted that the victim girl along with child under the custody of this petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C has been recorded from the victim girl and the victim girl has also been secured. He further submitted that the investigation is almost completed. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Court, Chennai, 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:

¶22

(a) if the petitioner 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;

¶23

(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;

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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

¶28

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

¶29

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;

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

01/12/2021

¶33

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

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO COURT, CHENNAI,

¶38

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE W-16 AWPS PULIANTHOPE POLICE STATION, CHENNAI

¶39

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶40

CC to M/S. M.J.NISSAR AHMED Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶41

CRL OP.20507/2021 Date :01/12/2021 JPA 08/12/2021

¶42

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

Ragul Raj v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragul Raj 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

S.Johnson @ Micheal Johnson Vs State Rep by

Anthoniraj Vs State Rep.by

Kalyanavarma Vs State Rep by

M.Gunasekaran Vs State Rep.by

J.Shelton Vs State Rep by

Sathishkumar Vs State Rep by