Irusagoundan @ Irusappan vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.02.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 448, 376 and 506(2) of I.P.C. and subsequently, it was altered as Sec.448, 376 and 506(2) of I.P.C. r/w 67 of I.T. Act in Crime No.270 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that on 04.12.2023 around 09.30 a.m., when the defacto complainant taking bath in her home, the petitioner came to her home and taken videos without her knowledge and threatened her stating that if she don't follow his wish, he will show the videos to everyone. He had also put a knife on the neck of two year old boy and threatened her that he would kill him, but inspite of that, when she tried to escape from there, he forcibly grabber her and engaged in sexual intercourse without her consent, thereby she got injured in her right ear and thereafter, he ran away from her house on the presence of her husband. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as lorry driver in a private concern and both the petitioner and defacto complainant were friends. He would submit that having came to know their friendship, at the instance of her husband, the defacto complainant gave a false complaint as if the petitioner had forcibly had a sexual intercourse. He would submit that the entire allegation is false, vindictive, wanton and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that he has not at all committed any of offence as alleged by the respondent police and based upon a complaint given by the defacto complainant, he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 56 days from 04.02.2024. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that without consent of defacto complainant, the petitioner had a sexual intercourse with her and he had also threatened her stating that he would show some videos to everyone, so that, she was forced to have sexual intercourse. He would also submit that 164 statement was recorded from the defacto complainant. He would submit that that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is almost completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and on perusal of the confession statement of defacto complainant, it reveals that admittedly, both are neighbours and they have some relationship, however her husband influenced her to give the present complaint against him and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner for more than 56 days, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

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, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur, Salem District, and on further conditions that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Tuesday and Sunday at 10.30 a.m. for period of three months;

(c) the petitioner shall not have any communication with the defacto complainant; If any of the said conditions violated, the bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled;

(d) the petitioner shall also appear before the trial court hearing regularly without fail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings;

(e) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

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

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

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