The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was charged with offences under the POCSO Act and IPC in a child sexual abuse case where the trial was at a part-heard stage.
Released on bail by executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL OP(MD). No.3826 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 25/02/2022
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRL OP(MD). No.3826 of 2022
Karuppaiah
... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Manapparai All Women Police Station, Trichy District. (Crime No.06 of 2020). ... Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Jeen Felix, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :-
For Bail in Crime No.06 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner/accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(a) and 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 altered into Sections 5(1) and 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 366 and 376(3) IPC, in Crime No.06 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.It is not in dispute that since the petitioner has not turned up for the hearing on 03.03.2021, NBW was ordered to be issued and the same was executed and the petitioner was arrested on 04.08.2021 and he is still in judicial custody.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
1/3
CRL OP(MD). No.3826 of 2022
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial Court has already examined four witnesses but the defense side has not chosen to cross-examine the witnesses and the case was posted on 02.03.2022 for examination of the remaining witnesses.
5.Considering the facts that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 04.08.2021, that the trial of the case is in part heard stage and that the petitioner is not having any bad antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.
6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 Judicial Magistrate, Musuri.
(a) 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;
(b)the petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, until further orders;
(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(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]; and;
(f)if the accused / petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
/ TRUE COPY /
25/02/2022
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
2/3
CRL OP(MD). No.3826 of 2022
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.
TO
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, TRICHY.
+1 CC to M/s.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, Advocate ( SR-1513[I] dated 25/02/2022 )
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.3826 of 2022 Date :25/02/2022 RS/VR/SAR.1(25.02.2022) 3P-7C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused in a case involving offences under POCSO Act and IPC with the trial at a part-heard stage.
Whether the accused satisfies the conditions for bail despite the case being at a part-heard stage and the prosecution witnesses not yet fully examined.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. P. K. ShajiReferred¶30
P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Karuppaiah
State
K. Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
