Dismissed

L.S.Balasubramanian v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Nov 2023CRL OP/21280/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail in a POCSections case involving a ten-year-old victim, rejecting the petitioner's claim of inability to commit the offence due to age and medical ailments based on the clear and consistent statement of the child witness.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner denied anticipatory bail; Criminal Original Petition dismissed.

L.S.Balasubramanian Vs Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.21280 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.21280 of 2023

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶4

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.33 of 2023,

¶5

registered under Sections 9 (m) r/w 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012, on the basis of a complaint given by the mother of the victim child. It is stated that the alleged offences had taken place on 20.08.2023.

¶6

It is the case of the prosecution that the victim child, who is aged just ten years and studying in a school, was called over by the petitioner herein by saying that he would give chocolate and he later committed the offences, which attracts Sections 9 (m) r/w 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offencess Act, 2012.

¶7

3.It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen of advanced age and has serious medical ailments, which prevented him from working and it is also contented that there was a motive for the father of the victim child to implicate the petitioner since the father was found selling lorry tickets unlawfully infront of the house of the petitioner and this was informed to the police officials. It is

¶8

1/3

¶9

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

¶10

Crl.OP.No.21280 of 2023

¶11

contended that owing to the physical condition of the petitioner herein, it would be extremely impossible for him to commit the offences stated above.

¶12

4.The offences said to have been committed does not require a person

¶13

to stand, work or even to move around. It is sufficient that the person sitting down could have committed the offences as alleged by the victim child. The victim child had been examined under Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C. and in the course of her statement, she had very clearly reiterated the offences which had been inflicted on her by the petitioner herein. This would belie the contention of the learned counsel that the father of the victim child had a motive. Now, the victim child had herself spoken about the incident.

¶14

5.In view of that particular fact, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The victim child has to be given necessary protection for tendering the evidence before the Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶15

sli

¶16

17.11.2023

¶17

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

¶18

sli

¶19

2/3

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.OP.No.21280 of 2023

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.21280 of 2023

¶23

17.11.2023

¶24

3/3

¶25

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

L.S.Balasubramanian v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.S.Balasubramanian v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Vs Inspector of Police

Mohana Sundaram Vs State Rep by

S.Appas Vs Inspector of Police

K.Manikandan Vs Dr.Dhanabal Palanisamy

K.Shantinidevi Vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police

R.Vijayakumar Vs the State Rep by Its