Allowed

Rajendran v. State Rep by

Madras HC8 Dec 2021CRL OP/23653/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners arrested under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving kidnapping and POCSO offences, imposing strict conditions regarding reporting, sureties, and avoidance of evidence tampering or absconding, with specific penalties for breach including registration of FIR under Section 229-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on execution of bond Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to reporting, non-tampering with evidence, and no absconding.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.23653 of 2021

¶6

1.Rajendran

¶7

2.Madhu

¶8

3.Pachamuthu 4.Suguna

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station, Dharmapuri District. (Crime No.436 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.436 of 2021 by the respondent police pending investigation and grant anticipatory bail.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Mohan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,

¶15

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 5(I), 6, 16, 17 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.436 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant on 05.10.2021 lodged a complaint with regard to missing of her minor daughter. Hence the complaint.

¶20

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

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the co-accused already released on bail, investigation almost completed, the girl is now under the care of the petitioners and the petitioners are the relatives of A1. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶24

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court of Dharmapuri, on condition that the petitioners 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:

¶25

(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;

¶26

(b) the petitioners 1 and 3 shall report before the respondent police on every Wednesday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and the petitioners 2 and 4 shall report before the respondent police as and when requires for interrogation;

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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

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

¶31

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

¶32

-sd/-

¶33

08/12/2021

¶34

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

¶35

TRUE COPY

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT OF DHARMAPURI.

¶39

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALACODE POLICE STATION, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.

¶40

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶41

CC to M/S.B.MOHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶42

CRL OP.23653/2021

¶43

Date :08/12/2021 JPA 15/12/2021

¶44

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

Rajendran v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran 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

M.Renuka Vs State Rep by

B.Surendher Vs State Rep by

R.Jayakanthan Vs State Rep by

G.Jegan Vs State by

A.M.Srikanth Kalingarayar Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Senthil Prabu Vs the State Rep by Its