The High Court dismissed the bail petition of an accused in a POCSO case. Heaping emphasis on the child victim's vulnerability and the lack of effective support, the Court held that allowing bail might prevent the child from testifying voluntarily. Consequently, bail was not granted.
Bail application dismissed; connected intervening petition closed.
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.O.P.No.19012 of 2023
Crl.O.P.No.19012 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.17993 of 2023
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.4 of 2023, registered
by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act. Subsequent to investigation, final report had been filed and the same had been taken cognizance as Spl.S.C.No.225 of 2023 and is pending trial before the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO, Chennai.
2.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had obtained information through Right to Information Act, regarding the details of the time when the child would go and leave the School and the time when the petitioner was actually arrested and the time when he was produced before the Magistrate after arrest and the time when the confession was recorded. It is stated that the occurrence had, according to the defacto complainant, taken place at 4.00 p.m. But it is stated that since the petitioner had obtained information under RTI Act, they had changed the time.
3.It is also stated that since the petitioner had complained about
Page 1 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.19012 of 2023
the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer had also been transferred to the Armed Reserve Section.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the
petitioner had been in custody for a considerable period of time. It is also stated that there was a private dispute over parking of vehicles and therefore, stated that the incident had never happened and that the complaint is motivated.
5.The learned counsel on behalf of the defacto complainant had also entered appearance and had filed an intervening application.
6.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/intervenor
disputed all the statements and stated that the petitioner herein had been abusing the child continuously for over two years. It is stated that she did not have any opportunity to vent her grievances since she was brought up only by her aunt and her father was addicted to alcohol, and she could not come out with the facts.
7.It is stated that on that particular date, when the child was in
Page 2 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.19012 of 2023
the open terrace, the accused had come over there and asked her to remove her school uniform and had committed the offences for which charges under Sections 9(m) & 10 of POCSO Act, had been framed.
8.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/intervenor
also stated that the child is now still facing threat from the petitioner herein and raised serious objections for grant of any relief to the petitioner herein.
9.On the side of the respondent, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) stated that the trial could not even start since the petitioner had been going around obtaining informations under the RTI Act. It is stated that statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C of the child alone had been recorded and in that particular statement, she had confirmed and reiterated the allegations as stated in the complaint and on the basis of which, FIR was registered. It is also contended that the child is yet to be examined as a witness before the Court, and that at this
juncture, bail should not to be granted by this Court.
Page 3 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.19012 of 2023
10.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced.
11.At this stage, the only issue is whether to grant bail to the
petitioner or not. The Court is taking cognizance of the offence and not the offender. The offences are under Sections 9(m) & 10 of the POCSO Act. The age of the petitioner is 57 years. The victim child is aged 12 years. She is studying 8th standard in a School.
12.It is to be noted that she has to be categorized as a vulnerable witness. Protection should be given to her to tender evidence out of free will and in an atmosphere, which is conducive for her to tender evidence. The statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., of the victim child had been recorded and had also been forwarded to the Court and a reading of the same shows that she had clearly stated about the nature of the offence which according to her had been committed.
13.It is therefore necessary that the Court should come to her assistance before she deposes evidence during the course of trial. The trial had been protracted, according to the respondent/prosecution only
Page 4 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.19012 of 2023
because the accused had sought information under RTI Act and wanted to place all the materials before the trial Court. Even before this Court, materials collected under RTI Act, had been submitted. But this Court is not here to examine the materials produced by the petitioner. That is the prerogative of the trial Court. All the issues collected through RTI Act can be placed before the trial Court for proper appreciation. But, at this stage for grant of bail, the only consideration is whether there is possibility of the witness being threatened and whether the witness would be able to tender evidence out of free and voluntary will.
14.That is not possible taking into consideration the fact that, according to the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the offence had been occurring for the past two years and the victim child does not have the effective support of her father, who unfortunately is addicted to alcohol.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Page 5 of 6
Crl.O.P.No.19012 of 2023
ata
15.In view of all these facts, at this stage since the evidence of the victim child had not been recorded, I am not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected intervening petition is also closed.
09.11.2023
ata
Crl.O.P.No.19012 of 2023
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a POCSO case where the trial has not commenced and there are apprehensions of witness intimidation.
Whether the petitioner's repeated requests for RTI information justify the denial of bail at this stage.
Whether the vulnerability of the child victim and lack of parental support necessitate withholding bail pending evidence recording.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Petitioner/Respondent
Defacto Complainant
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
