Allowed

K.Pandiyan v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC11 Jan 2022CRL OP/476/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras granted bail to two petitioners charged with child rape and bigamous marriage under IPC 376(2)(n), POCSO, and Child Marriage Acts, considering the duration of custody and investigation status.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail executing own bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties for Rs. 10,000 each, with conditions to report weekly, not tamper with evidence, and not commit similar offences.

K.Pandiyan Vs the State Rep.by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.476 of 2022

¶6

K.Pandiyan

¶7

J.Kumar

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State

¶10

Rep by the Inspector of Police Polur All Women Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.16 of 2021)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.16 of 2021, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.S.B.Viswananthan

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶17

The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.12.2021 for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC read with Sections 5(l) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act, in Crime No.16 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with others have conducted the marriage between the first petitioner and the victim girl. Further, the first petitioner had married the minor victim girl and sexually assaulted on her. Hence, the complaint.

¶19

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

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and a false case has been foisted against them and the petitioners have been suffering incarceration from 12.12.2021. Hence, he would pray for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶21

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded from the victim girl and the victim girl has been secured and the investigation is almost completed. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that as per statement given by the victim girl, stated the she has not interested to marry the first petitioner and the victim girl has been secured and the investigation is almost completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶23

(a) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing their own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the Petitioners have been confined and thereafter on their release;

¶24

(b) each of the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), before the Judicial Magistrate, Polur,, within 15 days from the date of commencement of the Court’s normal functioning, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;

¶25

(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶26

(d) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶27

(e) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(g) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶31

(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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];

¶32

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

¶33

-sd/-

¶34

11/01/2022

¶35

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

¶36

TRUE COPY

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, POLUR.

¶40

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVANNAMALAI [FOR INFORMATION].

¶41

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLUR All Women POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

¶42

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VELLORE.

¶43

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

¶44

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶45

+1 CC to M/S.S.B.VISWANATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.518

¶46

JPA 12/01/2022

¶47

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

K.Pandiyan v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pandiyan v. the 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

Parthiban @Jagan Vs Inspector of Police

Samuvel Vs the State Rep by

Sakthivel Vs the State Rep by

B.Vengatapathi Vs the State Rep by

Gandhimathi Vs State Rep by

Sheik Mohammed Vs State Rep by