Allowed

Silambarasan v. the State Rep by, the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Dec 2024CRL OP/32018/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to the petitioner accused of rape and sexual offenses under the BNS. Despite prior cases and investigation completion, the court was inclined to grant bail subject to conditions due to the relationship context and nature of offenses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to reporting, non-absconding, and no interference with witnesses.

Silambarasan Vs the State Rep by, the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL O.P. No.32018 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 20.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP.No.32018 of 2024

¶7

Silambarasan ... Petitioner / Accused

¶8

¶9

State rep. by:-

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Ambur All Women Police Station, Ambur, Tirupattur District. [Cr. No.19 of 2024]

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of

¶13

B.N.S.S., praying to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused in Cr. No.19 of

¶14

2024 on the file of the respondent police.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. B. Gopalakrishnan

¶16

For Respondent : Mr. S. Balaji,

¶17

Government Advocate [Criminal side] ORDER

¶18

The petitioner / Accused who was arrested and remanded to

¶19

judicial custody on 04.10.2024 for the offences punishable under

¶20

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

¶21

1/6

¶22

CRL O.P. No.32018 of 2024

¶23

Sections 64, 75, 77, 78 & 351(ii) of B.N.S. in Cr. No.19 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner forcibly raped the victim girl and took pictures of the same and threatened her that he will post the pictures in the social media. Hence the case.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 75, 77, 78 & 351(ii) of B.N.S. The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. In fact, both the petitioner and the defacto complainant loved each other, which was opposed by the defacto complainant's parents. Hence this false complaint has been lodged as against this petitioner. The petitioner is ready to marry the defacto complainant. He is in judicial custody for more than 75 days from 04.10.2024. Therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that this case was registered as against the petitioner for the offences

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

CRL O.P. No.32018 of 2024

¶30

under Sections 64, 75, 77, 78 & 351(ii) of B.N.S.. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was also filed. The petitioner has two previous cases and hence if he is granted bail, he would abscond. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶31

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

Considering the rival submissions made on either side, considering the nature of offences, considering the fact that investigation was completed and charge sheet was also filed and considering the relationship between the parties and also considering the incarceration period of the petitioner from 04.10.2024, also considering the fact that the petitioner has two previous cases, but those cases are not of similar kind of offences, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambur and on further conditions

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

CRL O.P. No.32018 of 2024

¶37

that:

¶38

[b] the petitioner shall report before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court on all working days at 10.30 a.m.

¶39

until further orders;

¶40

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected;

¶41

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

¶42

trial;

¶43

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶44

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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

¶45

4/6

¶46

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

¶47

CRL O.P. No.32018 of 2024

¶48

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

¶49

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶50

20.12.2024

¶51

index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs

¶52

P.DHANABAL, J mjs

¶53

¶54

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambur

¶55

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶56

The Inspector of Police, Ambur All Women Police Station, Ambur, Tirupattur District.

¶57

The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Vellore.

¶58

CRL O.P. No.30152 of 2024

¶59

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

¶60

5/6

¶61

CRL O.P. No.32018 of 2024

¶62

20.12.2024

¶63

6/6

¶64

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

Silambarasan v. the State Rep by, the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Silambarasan v. the State Rep by, 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

N.Rajamohan Vs the State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

The Zonal Officer,(The Assista Vs The Controlling Authority

The Zonal Officer,(The Assista Vs The Controlling Authority

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer

M/S.Suspa Pneumatics India Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Akash Govind S @ Akash Vs the State Rep by Its, the Inspector of Police