Petitioner sought bail in POCSO and IPC cases involving a minor. Court noted investigation completed, but granted bail after a year in custody with strict conditions including reserving the right to take action on breach.
Petitioner released on bail on Rs.15,000 bond with two sureties, including brother, subject to strict reporting and non-absconding conditions.
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.6408 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
Raji @ Nanraj .. Petitioner
/versus/
State rep.by Station House Officer Town Police Station, Karaikal Through Special Public Prosecutor Karaikal. (Crime No.56 of 2022) .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.56 of 2022 on the file of the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Karaikal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil
For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Ramachandramurthy Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 21.03.2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 4 of
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
POCSO Act, 2012 and sections 384, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and section 67 A of Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.56 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
minor XXX is that the accused had befriended her through social media/Insta gram and that he wanted to see the defacto complainant in person and thereby, they decided to meet at beach in Karaikal. During their meeting, the accused had informed her that he was in love with her and he intended to marry her and that the defacto complainant had informed him that she is a minor girl. But the accused promised her that he would marry her and later told her that he wanted to talk to her and thereby, the defacto complainant had taken him to her friend's house and while they were talking, the accused on the promise of marrying her, had committed penetrative sexual assault on her and during the act, he had also taken the intimate photographs of them and subsequently, once again during October 2021, again in a friend's house, they had sexual intercourse. Later, he had threatened the defacto complainant stating that
he was having intimate photos and received a sum of Rs.5,000/- from
2/8
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
her. Hence the case.
3/8
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
social media and he had come to Karaikal where, he had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Later based on the intimate photographs, the petitioner has also threatened the victim girl and received an amount of Rs.5,000/- through online transaction. He would submit that later during the course of investigation it has been found the petitioner is a married man. He would submit that the petitioner was arrested with great difficulties and if bail is granted to the petitioner there is every possibility of the petitioner absconding again. He would submit that final report has been filed and the case has been posted for examination of LW1 on 13.04.2023.
4/8
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
from the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
learned District and Sessions Court, Karaikal, and on further conditions that:
[a] 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;
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
[b] the petitioner shall stay at Karaikal and report before the Trial Court on all working day at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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];
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
12.04.2023
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no mpa
6/8
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
To
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
mpa
Crl.O.P.No.6408 of 2023
12.04.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, arrested under POCSO and IPC charges charged with penetrative sexual assault, is eligible for bail after custody for over a year.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaReferred¶48
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raji @ Nanraj
State rep.by Station House Officer Town Police Station, Karaikal
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Parties & counsel
