Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B. PUGALENDHI, J.
Thangapandiyan - Appellant
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police, Kanniyakumari - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD). No. 14431 of 2022
Decided On : 24-08-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - IPC, IT Act - 376, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 294(b), 66B - The judgment discusses the offenses punishable under Sections 376, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 294(b) IPC and Section 66B of Information Technology Act. It highlights the petitioner's role in concealing electronic evidence and the court's consideration of the gravity of the offenses, the stage of the case, and the petitioner's health conditions in granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.2, sought bail in a case involving offenses under Sections 376, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 294(b) IPC and Section 66B of Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner concealed electronic evidence to protect his son, the first accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the stage of the case, the gravity of the offenses, and the petitioner's health conditions. It granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing his age, ailments, and the period of incarceration undergone.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the petitioner's involvement in concealing electronic evidence, the gravity of the offenses, and the stage of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the petitioner's age, health conditions, the stage of the case, and the nature of the allegations against him.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was ordered, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail under specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: For bail in Crime No.8 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent police.)
1. The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who was arrested on 30.06.2020, in connection with the case in Crime No.8 of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D, 294(b) IPC and Section 66B of Information Technology Act, seeks bail.
2. Now, the case was taken cognizance in S.C.No.41 of 2021 and the same is pending before the learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Nagercoil.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Gomathy of Nagercoil lodged a complaint that she is a graduate residing along with her parents in Nagercoil and working in a private organization. From 26.08.2019, she had acquaintance with one Kasi/A1, who is none other than the son of the petitioner. The said Gomathy got introduced to the said Kasi/A1 through Social Media and they were contacting each other through mobile phone. In the meanwhile, the said Kasi/A1 proposed his love towards Gomathy and expressed his willingness to meet her. Thereafter, on believing the words of Kasi/A1, she went along with him in his Car, bearing Reg.No.TN-74-AT-5518. The said Kasi/A1 took her to a poultry farm at Therikkalpudur. Thereafter, the said Kasi/A1 locked the doors of the Car and sexually assaulted and raped her despite her objections and also videographed the entire incident without her knowledge. Subsequently, the said Kasi/A1 threatened her with the said Videograph and demanded to obey his other demands. During the course of investigation, it revealed that the petitioner, who is the father of A1, has concealed his son Kasi's Laptop and mobile phone and tampered with electronic gadgets in order to safeguard his son 1st accused in this case. Therefore, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused No.2 in this case.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen, running a poultry farm and he is not having any bad antecedent till the cases were registered against his son. With certain allegations against his son Kasi/A1 in this case, the respondent Police has implicated this petitioner also as an accused No. 2, as if, he concealed A1/Kasi's laptop in his poultry farm and he was arrested on 30.06.2020 and languishing in jail for more than 25 months. He further submits that in this case, final report was filed and charges were also framed on 08.06.2022. Subsequently, the trial has also commenced and the defacto complainant and other alleged victims have been examined.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the final report filed by the respondent Police, the role played by the petitioner is that after knowing about the incident, the petitioner, in order to protect his son, took all the electronic gadgets of his son/Kasi and hid them in a rice bag and attempted to conceal the evidence. Even assuming that the entire allegation is true, the only offence attracted against the petitioner is Section 201 IPC, which deals about the punishment for concealing the evidence. Even as per the said provision, the maximum punishment is only for a period of three years. Now, the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 25 months.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a disabled person with 50% disability suffering with knee cap displacement in both the legs. The petitioner is also a diabetic patient with various other health ailments. The petitioner is also injecting insulin around three times a day. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, considering his health ailments and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by him for more than 25 months.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this is the sixth bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court. Considering the gravity of offence, the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner
The main legal point established is that the court considered the gravity of the offenses, the stage of the case, and the petitioner's health conditions in granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail depends on various factors, including the nature of the offence, the presumption of innocence, and the need for a humane att....
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when ....
Grant of Bail - Bail is a rule and jail is an exception, in a case where accusation is grave and serious and heinous, the same will fall under the acceptation rather than the rule.
Bail may be granted even in serious offences if the accused's fair trial rights are violated, and no compelling reason for continued incarceration exists.
The court ruled that the seriousness of charges and ongoing risk to witnesses outweigh the defendant's custody length and medical claims, justifying bail denial.
The delay in concluding the trial, the presumption of innocence, and the lack of prima facie evidence were central to the court's decision to grant bail to the petitioner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
