Mubarak vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.04.2022 for the offences under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and Sections 5(1) r/w Sec.6(1) of POCSO Act and Sec.9 of Child Marriage Act, 2006 in Crime No.93 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's daughter studying in 8th std at Sri Ram Matric Higher Secondary School and the petitioner was working as English Teacher in the same school. Further it is alleged that from 21.04.2022 to 23.04.2022, the petitioner took the victim girl in his motor bike to Yercaud and conducted marriage with the defacto complainant's daughter in front of a closed temple and thereafter the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the victim girl for more than one occasion. Subsequently, victim girl came to know that the petitioner had already got married with another woman and he is having two children. Hence the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner detained as 'Sexual offender', by the detention order dated 18.05.2022 in SC.No.12 of 2022. He would further submit that the petitioner's father filed Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP.No.1157 of 2022 before this Court and the same was allowed on 07.02.2023. Hence, he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would submit that he is a private school teacher and he is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that this is the third petition seeking for bail and he has been suffering incarceration from 26.04.2022 for more than one year. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) raised objection stating that the petitioner was working as a English Teacher in Sri Ram Matric Higher Secondary School and the victim was studying in 8th standard in the same school. He would further submit that the petitioner used to send messages to the victim girl and also threatened the victim girl to love him and he takes the victim girl to Yercaud and he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her for more than one occasion. He would submit that the statement of Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. He would submit that so far, all the material witnesses were examined and today, the case is posted for examination of I.O. and this is the third petition seeking for bail. He would submit that if he is released on bail, there is possibility of tampering witnesses and hampering investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and on considering the fact that now the case is posted before the trial court for examination of I.O. and also the fact that major portion of trial was completed and on considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner for more than one year and if he is released on bail, there is no possibility of absconding, 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, in which one surety must be a blood surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, 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 respondent police on every Sunday at 10.30 a.m. till the disposal of trial and he shall also appear before the trial court for every hearing without fail. If he fails to appear, bail granted by this court would be cancelled automatically.

(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 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]; and;

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