N.Sagadevan vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.11.2023 for the offences under Sections 9 & 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and 5(l), 5(j) (ii) r/w. 6(1), 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.20 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that, as per the prosecution case, initially an FIR in Crime No. 20 of 2023 was registered by the respondent police after receiving the statement from the Victim Girl aged about 17 years for the allegation that Victim is 17 years old. Both, one Ashokram and One Murugan had loved the Victim Girl. However, the Victim Girl was in love with the said Ashokram. The Victim Girl and Ashokram belong to different castes. Hence, the parents of the Victim Girl A4 - Rajini and A5 - Dhanalakshmi had arranged marriage and the same was solemnized between the Victim Girl and A1- Palanisamy, on 21.08.2020 at Muthaiyan Kovil, Neruppur. A2-Chinnappan and A3-Sambhu are the parents in law of the Victim Girl. Due to the wedlock, A1 and the Victim Girl had a male child named Kesavaram. Under such circumstances. the Victim Girl stated that she would used to talk to her boyfriends and Girlfriends often without caring the child. Therefore, the Accused A1 to A3 used to advice her and so the Victim Girl went furious, and confrontation happened. Hence, the victim made an oral complaint to the Eriyur Police Station. Thereby, the petitioner being the Accused No. 6 had come and warned the Accused A1 to A3. Thereafter, the Victim Girl has obtained the phone number of the petitioner and she used to talk to the petitioner through phone call and whatapp call. Again, confrontation between the Accused A2, A3 and the Victim Girl had happened relating caring of child. Hence, the Victim Girl had called 181 and therefore, the respondent police had received statement from the Victim Girl and a case was registered.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way connected to the Crime, however, the respondent police has falsely implicated him. This act would ruin his entire life and career. He was remanded and in prison for the past 156 days. The learned counsel further submits that petitioner's was not included in the FIR, but he was pulled in by the respondent police in the Separate Final Report as a setup accused in order to ruin his career as police for the personal vengeance. He further submits that petitioner is ready to abide any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) raised objection stating that petitioner sent obscene photos, messages to the victims phone and compelled the victim girl to come to remote place and forcibly had sex with the victim girl and further 164 Cr.PC. statement was also recorded from the victim and investigation is completed. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

From the perusal of the statement given by the victim girl, it is seen that she was already married and having one child and staying in the in-laws house and due to some misunderstanding quarrel happened, at that time this petitioner conducted enquiry. It is further seen that, victim stated that petitioner sent messages and he called her, so she went to remote place and had sexual intercourse, but now, petitioner was suspended and charge sheet also filed against this petitioner. But police not filed any charge sheet against other persons who are parents and in-laws of the victim girl. 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 their executing separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, out of which, one must be blood surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act Dharmapuri in SPL.CC.No.13 of 2024, 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 daily morning at 10.30 a.m and evening at 06.00 p.m for a period of Five (5) months and the petitioner shall not have any communication with the victim girl;

(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.