Allowed

Mari v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Dec 2023CRL OP(MD)/20667/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges under the POCSO Act. The court held the offence was not heinous, noted the petitioner's local roots, and released him on bail with strict conditions to prevent tampering and absconding, requiring a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with conditions to appear, not tamper with evidence, and not abscond.

Mari Vs The Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.20667 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 15.12.2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶7

CRL OP(MD)No.20667 of 2023

¶8

Mari

¶9

... Petitioner/Respondent R2

¶10

¶11

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Manamadurai, Sivagangai. (In Crime No.21 of 2023) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirupathi, Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶15

PRAYER :-

¶16

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.21 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

CRL OP(MD)No.20667 of 2023

¶20

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶21

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 5(k), 5(L), 5(J)(ii), 5(n) r/w 6 POCSO Act in Crime No.21 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶22

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 in this case had physical relationship with the victim girl and the petitioner, who is the sister of A1, helped A1 to commit the offence. Hence, the case.

¶23

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶24

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the investigation is pending.

¶25

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh

¶26

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

¶27

2/5

¶28

CRL OP(MD)No.20667 of 2023

¶29

Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioner is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioner is having permanent residence at Sivagangai District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond.

¶30

6.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Special Court for Exclusive trial cases under POCSO Act, Sivagangai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a own bond for

¶31

a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

3/5

¶33

CRL OP(MD)No.20667 of 2023

¶34

respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that :

¶35

[a] the petitioner shall affix his photograph 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 his identity.

¶36

[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court on summons.

¶37

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶38

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶39

[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

¶40

in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶41