Inbaraj vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.11.2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(n), 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Sec.5(1) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, in Crime No.5 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that the victim child is aged about 14 years and the petitioner is aged about 18 years. It is alleged that the petitioner had love affair with the victim girl and said to have committed penetrative sexual assault towards the victim child. Hence, the complaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim is neighbour and both had love affair. He would submit that the allegations made against the petitioner is baseless and fabricated and 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 35 days from 14.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that victim is aged about 14 years and studying X std. He would submit that he had love affair with the petitioner, thereby he had committed a penetrative sexual assault. He would submit that 164 statement was recorded, in which she had stated that she had a love affair with him. He would submit that now the girl is also secured. 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.

Considering the fact that the investigation is almost completed, 164 statement was recorded, there is a love affair between them and victim girl also stated that she had an affair with him and she is also secured and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

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 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 petitioner shall appear before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m. on every Saturday for the period of three months and he shall not have any communication with a victim girl or with her family and to that effect, he should 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.