Allowed

Lakshmanan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Feb 2021CRL OP(MD)/2523/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL OP(MD) No.2523/2021 before the Madurai Bench. Petitioner arrested for kidnapping and marrying a minor under IPC and POCSO. Court granted bail with conditions including daily reporting, bond execution, and prohibition of tampering or absconding. Fresh FIR allowed if absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including daily police reporting and prohibition of absconding.

Lakshmanan Vs The Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.2523 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 17/02/2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.2523 of 2021

¶7

Lakshmanan ... Petitioner/Accused

¶8

¶9

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Panayapatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District. Crime No.334 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar,

¶11

Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Srinivasan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶13

PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No.334 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner/A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 363 of IPC @ 5(l),6 and 19 of POCSO Act on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the minor victim girl aged about 17 years was kidnapped by the accused persons and married to one Adaikalam. Hence the complaint.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. He would further submit that except the petitioner present at the time of marriage no other allegation has been levelled against him.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that there are totally three accused in this case and the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ herein is arrayed as A3. He would also submit that the petitioner

¶19

1/3

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.2523 of 2021

¶21

herein along with others kidnapped the minor victim girl aged about 17 years by the accused persons and married to one Adaikalam. He would further submit that A1 and A2 in this case were arrested by the respondent police.

¶22

From the perusal of the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim and her mother it is seen that there is no mention about the petitioner. One Palaniyayee, the sister of Adaikalam had participated in the marriage of Adaikalam with the victim girl who is said to have sexually assaulted the victim girl. The petitioner was only present during the marriage of the minor victim girl with the said Adaikalam and except this there is no other allegation against the petitioner.

¶23

Taking note of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶24

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukottai.

¶25

i) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity

¶26

ii) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders.

¶27

iii)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness. iv) the petitioner shall not abscond during trial.

¶28

v)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 SCW 5560].

¶29

vi) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/-

17/02/2021

/ TRUE COPY /

/ /2021

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶35

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶36

Madurai - 625 023.

¶37

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

¶38

2/3

¶39

CRL OP(MD). No.2523 of 2021

¶40

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶41

¶42

THE SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, PUDUKOTTAI.

¶43

THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT JAIL CUM BORSTAL SCHOOL, PUDUKKOTTAI.

¶44

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAYAPATTI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

¶45

THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶46

+1 CC to Mr.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, Advocate (SR-1095[I] dated 17/02/2021)

¶47

AAV

¶48

MS/PN/SAR-3/17.02.2021/3P.6C

¶49

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

¶50

3/3

Lakshmanan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Natarajan Vs Kaleem Sait

Bhavani Vs Ponnammal

Selvam M/40 Yrs, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

The Branch Manager Vs Raghule Amuthan

M.Krishnamurthy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

C. Nehru Vs A.K. Chinnu