IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
Perumal - Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore & Others - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 62 of 2022
Decided On : 16-03-2022
POCSO Act - Bail - The court granted bail to the appellant, who was the sole accused in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, considering the completion of investigation, the appellant being a first offender, and the period of incarceration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the sole accused, sought bail in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the appellant, considering the completion of investigation, the appellant being a first offender, and the period of incarceration.
Issues: Bail application in a case involving offences under the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The completion of investigation, the appellant being a first offender, and the period of incarceration were considered in granting bail to the appellant.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the criminal appeal, granting bail to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed is filed under Section 14-A(2) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, praying to set aside the order dated 30.11.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.944 of 2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore and to allow the above Criminal Appeal by enlarging the appellant on bail.)
1. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 30.11.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.944 of 2021, the appellant, who was the sole accused in Crime No.18 of 2021 on the file of the All Woman Police Station, Pollachi, has preferred this appeal and praying to enlarge him on bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.2021, the defacto complainant’s daughter, aged about 10 years and her grandmother were grazing the goats near river bed. When the grandmother went to some distance, the appellant/accused, who was catching fish in the river, called the victim girl for playing after undressing. By saying this the accused removed his Dhoti and inner wear and also asked the victim girl to remove her cloths. The victim girl, due to scare tried to run away from that place. But, the accused caught the victim girl and threatened her that if she disclosed this incident to anybody he will finish her off. Immediately, the victim girl run away from that place. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Based on her complaint, the second respondent police registered a case against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 9(m), 10, 11(i) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and 506(i) of I.P.C. And Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(i)(r), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that as of now, the respondent police has completed the investigation and filed a final report before the trial Court. According to him, the appellant is in the Judicial Custody from 21.08.2021 onwards. Hence, he prays for allowing this appeal and to enlarge him on bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/Police fairly admits that the appellant is the first offender and as of now, the investigation in this case has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed before the trial Court.
5. Though notice has been served on the third respondent and her name has also been printed in the cause-list, none appeared on behalf of the third respondent.
6. Now, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it would appear that the respondent police had registered the case against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 9(m), 10, 11(i) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and 506(i) of I.P.C. And Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(i)(r), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Admittedly, the appellant is the first offender, further, as of now, investigation in this case has been completed and hence, custodial interrogation is not at all necessary. More than that, the appellant is in judicial custody from 21.08.2021 onwards.
7. Hence, taking note of all the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the appellant and also by considering the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant subject to certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions;
(a) the appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore.
(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left
Consideration of completion of investigation, first offender status, and period of incarceration in granting bail under the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroc....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the consideration of various factors, including the completion of a portion of the investigation, the victim child's medical examination, the absence o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail may be granted to an accused under the POCSO Act if the alleged occurrence happened with the consent of the victim and the accused has no....
The court's decision was primarily based on the necessity of further custody for completing the investigation and the specific circumstances of the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail can be granted based on the lack of direct involvement in the offence and other relevant factors, even when accused of related misconduct....
The court upheld the trial court's denial of bail, emphasizing the severity of the offences and the need for a fair trial without witness tampering.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.