Prabakaran vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.01.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506(i) of I.P.C. r/w Sec.67(A) of I.T. Act in Crime No.8 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that 4 years prior to the date of lodging the complaint, while she was alone in the petitioner's house, the petitioner by giving some seditious substance in a soft drinks and taken nude photo and threatened her and had sex. Since her parents arranged for a marriage, the petitioner assisted her parents and stopped her marriage. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a close relative of defacto complainant and due to some family dispute, he was falsely implicated in this case and he is aged about 58 years. 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 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 86 days from 06.01.2024. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the defacto complainant was sexually harassed by this petitioner, who is a close relative and often threatened her that he would spoil her marital life and at one occasion, when the marriage was arranged, he caused interference, so the marriage was stopped. 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.

On seeing the facts, it reveals that the petitioner is aged about 59 years and the defacto complainant is aged about 34 years and there is some affair between herself and the petitioner and when the same came to know other family members, the present complaint was lodged and on perusal of the confession statement of defacto complainant, the fact reveals that she is aged about 34 years and she is working as a Teacher and now she was also got married and settled in her life and also the fact that the investigation is almost completed and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner for more than 86 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, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai 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 Saturday 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.