Karthik vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.03.2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354 of IPC and 5(1), 6, 11(4), 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 @ 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and 354(D) of IPC, in Crime No.137 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that on 09.03.2022, one of the victim who was staying at Government Children home refused to attend the school. On enquiry it reveals that when the victim was stayed at Pallaniappa Orphanage home which was run by a petitioner's father. When the victim was alone at orphanage, the petitioner made false promise with victim to marry her and had a sexual intercourse with her. Hence, the complaint.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father was running a Palaniappa orphanage to render social service to the drown trodden people and he was died on 17.01.2018 and the petitioner approached the concerned authority to reopen his orphanage, but the victim girl is used as a tool for the incident after lapse of several years and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the victim age is between the age of 18 to 21 years after evaluation of medical report. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that when the victim was stayed at Pallaniappa Orphanage home which was run by a petitioner's father and on 09.03.2022, the petitioner misbehaved with her and had a sexual intercourse with her. He further submits that the investigation has been completed and PW1 and PW2 were also examined. He would further submit that the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C has been recorded from the victim girl. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the counsel and also of the fact that the period of incarceration suffered 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 a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, (out of which, one should be the blood surety), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Vellore, 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 report before the Trial Court on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m., and also before the respondent police on every Sunday at 10.30 a.m, until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking stating that he will not have any communication with the victim girl in future;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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];

[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.