High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 01 MAD CK 0042

Doss vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 January 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition No. 336 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 695 words

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

1.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.11.2021 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Sec.294(b), 506(ii) of I.P.C., in Crime No.13 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, pending trial in Spl.S.C.No. 105 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, seeks bail.

2.

The case of prosecution is that the petitioner and victim child are neighbours. Victim child is aged about 17 years and the petitioner is aged about 52 years. On the date of alleged occurrence, i.e. on 19.11.2021 at about 06.00 p.m., when the victim girl came to house of petitioner for charging cell phone, thereby, the petitioner said to have threatened her and he had sexual inter course with her at knife point. Hence, the complaint.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is neighbour of victim child and already due to a dispute, there was a wordy quarrel between them and after lapse of 11 days, the complaint was lodged against him. So, the allegations made against the petitioner is baseless and fabricated. He would submit that he is no way connected with the offence and he has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than one year from 30.11.2021. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that by threatening the victim child, he had committed a penetrative sexual assault. He would submit that 164 statement was recorded, in which she has narrated the threaten made by him. He would submit that now the girl is also secured and trial is also commenced in Spl. S.C.No. 105 of 2022. He would submit that the investigation is almost completed and if he is released on bail, he would hamper the investigation and tamper the witnesses Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances, and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed, 164 statement was recorded and now the trial is commenced in Spl.S.C.No. 105 of 2022 on the file learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, 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 petitioner shall stay at Tiruvannamalai and report before the Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai on alternative days at 10.30 a.m. and he shall appear before the respondent police on every Wednesday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of four months and he shall not have any communication with a victim girl or with her family, to that effect, he shall file an affidavit.

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond 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]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.