Allowed

Subash Chandra Bose @ Subash v. State Rep.by

Madras HC7 Jan 2021CRL OP/20917/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, Coram Justice V. Bharathidasan, granted bail to the petitioner in a POCSO and IPC case. The court considered the deletion of incriminating photos and seized phone. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including reporting daily and executing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties subject to daily reporting and other specified conditions.

Subash Chandra Bose @ Subash Vs State Rep.by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 07.01.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20917 of 2020

¶6

Subash Chandra Bose @ Subash ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Rep. by ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, Baluchettychathiram Police Station, Baluchettychathiram, Kanchipuram District. (Crime No.1678 of 2020)

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.1678 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.M. Prabhavathy, APP ORDER

¶12

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.11.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 292A(a), 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 12 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offence Act 2012 in Crime No.1678 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶14

2 . The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner

¶15

said to have forced the victim girl to love him and also posted photographs of the petitioner along with the defaacto complainant in the social media. Based on the complaint given by the father of the victim, the complaint came to be registered.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are close relatives and no obscene photos had been uploaded. He would further submit that cellphone also seized by the police and the entire photos have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been deleted from the social media and hence, he prays to grant

¶17

bail to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the victim is the minor, aged about 16 years old. The petitioner compelled the victim girl to love him. Since the victim refused to love him, the petitioner uploaded the photos in the social media. She would further submit that the petitioner is involved in two more cases for sand theft. Hence, she vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that now the cellphone has been seized and the photos were deleted from the social media and also the fact that admittedly no obscene photos have been uploaded in the social media, and taking note of the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶20

(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 Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act , Chengalpet, Kanchipuram District and on further conditions that:

¶21

(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;

¶22

(c) the petitioner shall stay at Trichy and report before the Inspector of Police, Trichy Cantonment Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter, before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶23

(d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of

¶24

similar nature;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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];

¶28

(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶29

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

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

07/01/2021

¶32

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

¶33

TRUE COPY

¶34

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE,SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT, CHENGALPET, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUCHETTYCHATHIRAM POLICE STATION, BALUCHETTYCHATHIRAM, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT. 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL. 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRICHY CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, TRICHY. CC to M/S. K.G.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20917/2020 Date :07/01/2021 MN-08/01/2021

¶35

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

Subash Chandra Bose @ Subash v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Chandra Bose @ Subash 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

Ganeshbabu Vs State by

E.Arulmozhi Vs the State Rep by

Ramachandren Vs State Rep by

Muruganantham Vs State Rep by Its

K.Balakrishnan Vs the State Rep.by

Siva @ Rajini Vs State Rep.by