Ramar v. State Rep.by
Case brief
What is this about?
This High Court granted bail to the petitioner, charged under the POCSO Act and IPC, after considering that the main allegations were against another accused. Bail was conditioned upon daily police reporting and prohibiting tampering with evidence or witnesses.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner released on bail with two sureties, bond of Rs. 10,000, daily reporting to police, and prohibition against tampering with evidence/witnesses or absconding.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 18.01.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.O.P.No.487 of 2021
Ramar
... Petitioner
Vs.
State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Veppur Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.1248 of 2020) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.1248 of 2020 pending on the file of the Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam
For Respondent : Mrs.M.Prabhavathi, Additional Public Prosecutor **** O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in the alleged offence under Section 366 (A) of IPC and POCSO Act, 2002.
What conditions must be imposed on the petitioner while granting bail in a case involving a minor victim under POCSO.
Whether a fresh FIR can be registered if the accused on bail absconds before discharge or acquittal.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
RAMAR
- respondent
REPUBLIC OF INDIA REPP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Coram
V. BHARATHIDASAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court