Allowed

Karuppasamy v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Oct 2022CRL OP(MD)/17887/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 438 CrPC regarding a POCSO case involving alleged sexual intercourse and childbirth, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail, ordering the petitioner to execute a bond with sureties and follow weekly reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner ordered to execute a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, report weekly, and not tamper with evidence or abscond.

Karuppasamy Vs The Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.17887 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 06/10/2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.17887 of 2022

¶8

Karuppasamy

¶9

... Petitioner/ Sole Accused

¶10

¶11

The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Alangulam, Tenkasi District. (Crime No.26 of 2022). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.Sathya Chidambaram S, Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶15

PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.26 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 6 r/w. 5(1)(j)(ii) of POCSO Act, in Crime No.26 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner on promising to marry the victim girl had sexual intercourse with her, before attaining the age of majority and subsequently, she gave a birth to child on 14.09.2022 and now, she is under the custody of petitioner. Hence, the complaint.

¶19

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that now the victim is under the custody of the petitioner and seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

1/3

¶22

CRL OP(MD). No.17887 of 2022

¶23

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that it is a case of child marriage and the investigation of the case almost completed.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that both the victim and the accused are living together and that the victim girl gave a birth to child, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Tirunelveli District on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶26

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.

¶27

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once in a week i.e., on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of eight weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶28

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶29

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶30

[e] 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].

¶31

/ TRUE COPY /

¶32

/10/2022

¶33

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

2/3

¶36

CRL OP(MD). No.17887 of 2022

¶37

¶38

1 THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR POCSO ACT CASES, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

¶39

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, ALANGULAM, TENKASI DISTRICT.

¶40

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

¶41

+1. C.C. to M/s.Sathya Chidambaram S, Advocate SR.No.11116.

¶42

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17887 of 2022 Date :06/10/2022 TRP MK/GB/SAR. /10.10.2022/3P/4C

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

3/3

Karuppasamy v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppasamy 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

K.K. Karthick Kumar @ Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

K.K. Saravanan Vs The Inspector of Police

J.Shantha Vs Gowri

Pandi Vs The Inspector of Police

Sekar Vs The Inspector of Police

Sabarimuthu Ganesh Vs The Sub Inspector of Police