Allowed

S.Parameswari v. State Rep by

Madras HC19 Jan 2021CRL OP/218/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a POCSO and kidnapping case. The petitioner, an accessory accused who allegedly facilitated a marriage, was released on bail subject to strict conditions including appearance before the magistrate, execution of a bond, and prohibition against tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest within fifteen days, conditioned upon executing a bond with sureties and adhering to specific reporting and conduct conditions.

S.Parameswari Vs State Rep by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 19.01.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.218 of 2021

¶6

S.Parameswari ... petitioner Vs. The State ... Respondent Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Polur Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.1608 of 2020)

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge Bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1608 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.B.Viswanathan For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶9

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 366 (A) of IPC. Subsequently after securing minor victim girl, the respondent police have altered the offences under Sections 366 (A) and 376 of IPC read with Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, in Crime No.1608 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶10

2.There are totally six accused, the petitioner is ranked as A2. The prosecution case is that the victim girl aged about 17 years, who is the daughter of the defacto complainant was kidnapped by all the accused for getting her married to A1. Based on the complaint given by the father of the victim girl, a crime has been registered.

¶11

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the main accused, i.e. A1 in this case was having a love affair with the minor girl and both of them left their house and got married. The only allegation against the petitioner is that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ she helped to get marriage with A1 and minor girl. He would submit

¶12

that A1/Selvakumar was arrested, remanded to judicial custody and subsequently released on bail. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 kidnapped the victim girl and got married her. The petitioner only has helped for the marriage. He would further submit that statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded and the investigation is completed and filed the final report.

¶14

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by the learned counsel of this case and also considering the fact that the main accused is A1 and the petitioner helped the marriage without knowing that the victim girl is a minor, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶15

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 on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶16

[a] the petitioner and 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.

¶17

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶18

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶19

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶20

[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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SCW 5560].

¶21

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

-sd/-

¶23

19/01/2021

¶24

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

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
POLUR.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUVANNAMALAI [FOR INFORMATION].
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
POLUR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
+1 CC to M/S.S.B.VISWANATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR NO. 584

¶27

CRL OP.218/2021 Date :19/01/2021 MN-01/02/2021

¶28

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

S.Parameswari v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Parameswari 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

Ramar Vs State Rep.by

Sivaraj Vs State by

Gokulnath Vs State Rep by

Muthukumar Vs State by Inspector of Police

Dilli Babu Vs State Rep by

Surya Vs State Rep. by Its