Dismissed¶¶32

Manikandan v. State by

Madras HC20 Jun 2025CRL MP/11266/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: suspension of sentence; Section 430(1) Cr.P.C.; bail pending appeal; Crl.M.P. in Crl.A.; dismissal of miscellaneous petition; prima facie case; POCSO conviction; Section 376(2)(n) IPC; Section 6 r/w 5(l) POCSO Act; Section 9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act; victim's statement refusing to live with accused; threat to withdraw case; Special Court (POCSO Cases) Tiruvannamalai; Spl.SC.No.166 of 2019; Crime No.1124/2018; Crl.A.No.641 of 2025; Madras High Court; G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner: the miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail was dismissed. The Court further directed that if any complaint is lodged by the victim, the respondent shall take appropriate action against the person who committed the offence. ¶¶32

Manikandan Vs State by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence imposed on the petitioner in Spl.SC.No.166 of 2019 should be suspended and the petitioner enlarged on bail pending disposal of Crl.A.No.641 of 2025.

¶¶18

Court's answer

The petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case to suspend the sentence imposed on him by the trial court; as such, the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

Ancillary direction: if any complaint is lodged by the victim, the respondent (police) is directed to take appropriate action against the person who committed the offence.obiter¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.) dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 430(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending disposal of Crl.A.No.641 of 2025. The petitioner, sole accused in Spl.SC.No.166 of 2019 (Special Court, POCSO Cases, Tiruvannamalai), stood convicted by judgment dated 07.05.2024 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(l) of the POCSO Act (rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with two years' simple imprisonment in default) and under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-). Counsel submitted that the petitioner had lived with the victim during the trial, that he had been secured and remanded on a non-bailable warrant issued while he was away at his father's funeral, and that he was willing to legalise the marriage. Produced before the Court, the victim stated she had never lived with the petitioner, that his family members had threatened her about one and a half months earlier to withdraw the case, and that she neither wished to live with him nor to withdraw the case. Holding that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the respondent police to take appropriate action against the offender if the victim lodged any complaint.

¶1

Crl.MP.No.11266 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.11266 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.641 of 2025

Manikandan

...Petitioner

Vs.

State By the Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District (Crime No.1124/2018) ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 430(1) of Cr.P.C., to suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioner in Spl.SC.No.166 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Court (POCSO Cases) Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District in Spl.SC.No.166 of 2019 dated 07.05.2024 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the said Crl.A.No. /2025 on the file of this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.MP.No.11266 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed praying to suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioner in Spl.SC.No.166 of 2019 on the file of the learned Special Court (POCSO Cases) Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District in Spl.SC.No.166 of 2019 dated 07.05.2024 and to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the aforementioned criminal appeal.

¶19

The petitioner, who is the accused in Spl.SC.No.166 of 2019, was convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Court (POCSO Cases) Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, vide judgment dated 07.05.2024, as follows:

¶20

Rank of the accused	Conviction under Section	Sentence a	warded
Sole accused	Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(l) of POCSO Act	to undergo imprisonment for years and to Rs.1,000/-, in def simple imprison years	rigorous a period of 10 pay fine of ault to undergo ment for two
	Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act	to undergo imprisonment for years and to Rs.1,000/-	rigorous a period of 2 pay fine of

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.MP.No.11266 of 2025

¶25

even during the trial, the petitioner was living with the victim. When the petitioner was not present before the trial court, since he went to attend the funeral of his father, he was not able to appear before the trial court and the trial court issued non bailable warrant, pursuant to which the petitioner was secured and remanded to judicial custody even before the date of judgment. Now the petitioner is ready and willing to legalise their marriage and is also willing to take the victim to his matrimonial house.

¶26

Considering the above submissions, this Court directed the victim to be present before this Court. Accordingly, the victim also appeared before this Court today. She stated that she never lived with the petitioner during the trial. After lodgment of complaint by her parents, as at that time she was minor, she was secured and sent to home, since she was not interested to go to her parents' house. Even till today, the victim has never lived with the petitioner. She further submitted that one and a half months before, the family members of the petitioner threatened her to withdraw the case. Therefore, she is not at all interested to live with the petitioner and she does not want to withdraw the case.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.MP.No.11266 of 2025

¶30