Allowed

Saravanankumar @ Saravanan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/4170/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted bail to the sole accused in a POCSO case involving a 14-year-old victim. The court imposed strict conditions including daily reporting, no tampering with evidence, and not leaving Thoothukudi.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on a bond with two sureties subject to conditions including daily reporting and restriction on leaving Thoothukudi.

Saravanankumar @ Saravanan Vs The Inspector of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.4170 of 2021

¶2

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

¶3

Date : 23/03/2021

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL OP(MD). No.4170 of 2021

¶6

Saravanankumar @ Saravanan ... Petitioner/Accused (sole Accused)

¶7

The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No.5 of 2021. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef,

¶9

Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

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

¶11

PRAYER :-

¶12

For Bail in Crime No. 5/2021 on the file of the respondent Police

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner/sole accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.02.2021 for the offences punishable under Section Girl Missing @ 366(A) of IPC and Section 5(l) r/w. 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner on false promise of marrying the victim girl had kidnapped her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Hence the complaint.

¶16

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 also submit that both the petitioner and the victim loved each other and the victim on her own left the parental home and went with the petitioner, hence he seeks bail.

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.4170 of 2021

¶20

The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that victim in this case is 14 years and the petitioner herein is aged about 25 years. He would also submit that petitioner on false promise of marrying the victim girl had kidnapped her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her.

¶21

From the perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C it is seen that both the petitioner and the victim loved each other and she voluntarily joined with the petitioner and later they have gone to Tiruchendur, Chennai and Bombay and later she had came back to home. The victim in this case is aged about 14 years and a school going girl and the petitioner is aged about 25 years . Though she had stated that it is basically love affair it is due to predominant infatuation and they have contributed for the same. Further substantial portion of the investigation is over.

¶22

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:

¶23

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 Special Court of exclusive trial of cases under the POCSO Act, Thoothukudi.

¶24

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

¶25

ii) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m till the filing of charge sheet and thereafter before the trial Corut on all hearing dates without fail.

¶26

iii)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness.

¶27

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶30

2/3

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.4170 of 2021

¶32

vii) the petitioner shall not leave the Thoothukudi till the completion of trial.

¶33

sd/-

¶34

23/03/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶35

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.

¶36

¶37

1.THE SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER POCSO ACT, THOOTHUKUDI.

¶38

2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARUMUGANERI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶39

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.

¶40

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

¶41

+1 CC to Mr.A.MOHAMED HANEEF, Advocate (SR-2410[I] dated 23/03/2021 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4170 of 2021 Date :23/03/2021 AAV TK/PN/SAR.4/23.03.2021/3P/6C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Saravanankumar @ Saravanan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanankumar @ Saravanan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanagu Vs The Inspector of Police

Babu Vs The Inspector of Police

Barathan Vs The Inspector of Police

Balu @ Balamurugan Vs The Inspector of Police

Alagu @ Alagupandian Vs The Inspector of Police

Stalin Vs The Inspector of Police