Ajith @ Ajithkumar And Others vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.02.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 r/w 109 of IPC and Sections 17, 4, 6, 5(1) of POCSO Act 2012 in Crime No.711 of 2022, on the file of the respondent Police, seek bail.

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant / Kotti is that A1/Pokeswaran had kidnapped his minor daughter and performed marriage with her and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Hence the complaint.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and since they happen to be the friends of A1/Pokeswaran, they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that A1 and the minor daughter of the defacto complainant were in love and they have eloped from the house and the respondent was unable to find them out and in order to put pressure on A1, they have given a false complaint, as if the petitioners have abetted and assisted A1 in kidnapping the minor victim girl. He would further submit that A1 has been arrested after 1 ½ months and the victim girl has also been secured. He would also submit that the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been recorded from the victim girl, wherein, she has not made any specific allegations as against the petitioners. Thereby, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that it is a case where A1/Pokeswaran had kidnapped the minor daughter of the defacto complainant and kept her in illegal confinement for 1 ½ months and performed marriage with her in a temple and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault on her. He would further submit that there is no allegations as against the petitioners as if they have committed any sexual assault on the victim girl. He would also submit that the petitioners, being the friends of A1, have helped him in committing the offence and thereby, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by either side and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chengalpattu 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;

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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.