Allowed

Prabhu v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 May 2022CRL OP(MD)/7685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C connected with Sections 363 IPC and PoCSO Act, 2012 regarding a child conceived in a love affair and marriage, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, considering affidavits of intended marriage after attaining majority and victim's assurance, granted bail on ₹10,000 bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, one being a blood relative, subject to conditions including daily reporting and no tampering with witnesses.

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

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.7685 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 12/05/2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.7685 of 2022 Prabhu ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶8

Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. (Crime No.11/22)

¶9

... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Bageerathan, Advocate for

¶11

Mr.B.Santhanam Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

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

¶13

PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.11 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner/Sole Accused, who was arrested on 21.03.2022 for the offences under Sections 363 of IPC, Sections 5(i), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in Cr.No.11 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent police after getting information from the Government Hospital, Karaikudi, registered a case against the petitioner, as if the petitioner had love affair with the defacto complainant's daughter and performed formal marriage and without her consent the petitioner had sexual relationship with her and thereafter, the victim gave birth a female child.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is purely love affair between the petitioner and the defacto complainant's daughter. A marriage was performed between them with the blessings of the family elders on 23.05.2021. Thereafter, a female child was born. Further, the learned counsel appearing for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner has placed before this Court an affidavit of the

¶18

1/3

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.7685 of 2022

¶20

petitioner, which was signed in the presence of Superintendent, Thirupathur Prison and agreed to perform marriage between the petitioner and the victim, after the victim attaining the majority. He has also produced the affidavit of the parents of the petitioner. They have also assured to perform marriage between the petitioner and the victim and take care their grandchild.

¶21

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that it is purely love affair between the petitioner and the defacto complainant's daughter. The family members were performed marriage between them when the victim is 17 years, which is nullity. The petitioner has earlier filed an bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.6661 of 2022 and the same was dismissed on 11.04.2022. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

5.Admittedly, there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim girl and formal marriage has also performed between them in the presence of family elders. Though the earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court, now the petitioner is ready to marry the victim girl after attaining the age of majority. The petitioner and their parents have filed their affidavit to that effect. Therefore, considering the affidavit filed by the petitioner and their parents, further victim and her mother appeared before this Court and prayed for enlargement of bail to the petitioner, considering the change of circumstances at present, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 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, of whom, one should be a blood related surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under the Pocso Act, 2012, Sivagangai and on further condition that:

¶23

(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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶24

(b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶25

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶26

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶27

(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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶28

2/3

¶29

CRL OP(MD). No.7685 of 2022

¶30

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

¶31

sd/-

¶32

12/05/2022 / TRUE COPY / 12/05/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶33

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.

¶34

¶35

1 THE SPECIAL COURT FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CASES UNDER THE POCSO ACT, 2012, SIVAGANGAI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, THIRUPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to Mr.B.SANTHANAM RAJESH KUMAR, Advocate SR.No.23662. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7685 of 2022 Date :12/05/2022 TM MK/JM/SAR.II/12.05.2022/3P/6C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

Prabhu v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu 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

Aaronkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Nagaraj. a Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ganesan Vs The Inspector of Police

Esakkimuthu Vs The Inspector of Police

Nagarani Vs The Inspector of Police

Muthumani Vs The Inspector of Police