The seriousness of the offense and the post-bail conduct of the accused should be considered while granting bail, and proper trial procedures, especially in cases involving child victims, must be followed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(ii) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the bail granted to the respondent/A1 by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram, in Crl.M.P No.904 of 2023, dated 03/05/2023.)

1. This criminal original petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent/A1 by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ramanathapuram, in Crl.MP No.904 of 2023, dated 03.05.2023.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Originally, the case was registered in Crime No.1 of 2023. During the course of investigation finding that two separate occurrences were taken place, separate final reports have filed. The date of occurrences are stated to be 26/12/2022 and 13/02/2023. In respect of the occurrence said to have been taken place, on 26/12/2022, the respondent herein is A1 and one Annalakshmi @ Uma and Kayalvizhi were A2 and A3.

4. So far as the occurrence took place, on 13/02/2023, in respect of the very same victim girl, the accused are Prabhakaran @ Pudhumalar Prabhakaran, Raja Mohammed, Annalakshmi @ Uma and Kayalvizhi.

5. The bail was granted to the respondent herein, by order, dated 03/05/2023 in Cr.MP No.904 of 2023 by the trial court. The above said order of the trial court came up for the following disapproval by this court, while hearing Crl.OP(MD)No.9219 of 2023, which was filed by the co-accused Raja Mohammed.

“5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that A1 was already granted bail by the District Court.

6. It is seen that A1 was already granted bail by the District Court and on perusal of the order passed by the District Court, the reasons stated by the District Court is not satisfied for grant of bail to the accused.”

6. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the above said observation of this court has led the prosecution to file this petition to cancel the bail. This is the secondary ground.

7. The primary ground is that after coming out of the bail, the respondent herein influenced or won over the victim, who is aged about only 15 years and this caused the victim girl to turn hostile at the time of trial. This is the primary reason, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/A1 would submit that after considering the factual aspect, more particularly, delay on the part of de-facto complainant in lodging the complaint and contradictory statements given by the victim girl, while examining under section 164(3) Cr.P.C, in the complaint, the bail order has been passed. And the duration of custody has also taken into consideration, while granting bail. According to him, absolutely, no post bail conduct, which is illegal in nature or violation of the condition has been brought on record by the prosecution to cancel the bail.

9. The criteria and parameter which has to be taken into account, while cancelling the bail, he would also rely upon the number of judgments:-

(1)Myakala Dharmarajam and others Vs. State of Telangana and another [(2020)2 SCC 743];

(2) Bhuri Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022(3) MWN (Cr.)337 (SC);

(3)Jitendra Taneja Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and other [(2021)5 SCC 308];

(4) State Through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. T.Gangi Reddy alias Yerra Gangi Reddy [(2023)4 SCC 253];

(5) Abdul Basit alias Raju and others Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another [(2014)10 SCC 754];

(6) Rameshwar Sharma Vs. Director of Revenue Intelligence [(2018)11 SCC 713];

(7) S.Siva Vs. Genguraj and 4 others (2008(5)CTC 633.

(8) X vs. State of Telangana and others (2018)2 MWN (Cr.)332(SCC).

(9) State Vs. Muthunarayanan [2016(2)MWN(Cr.)312].

(10) Manjith Prakash and others Vs. Shobha Devi and another (2008(2)MWN (Cr.) 292(SC)].

(11) Central Goo