Advocates:
['M/S G MAGESHKUMAR', '', 'K S RAJU', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.17045 of 2021

MANICKAM

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

Vs

THE STATE REP.BY

[ RESPONDENT ]

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

SRIPERUMBUDUR ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION,

KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.

CR.NO.6/2021.

For Petitioner : M/S. G.MAGESHKUMAR Advocate

For Respondent : MR. C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the

respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 67

Information Technology Act r/w Sec.12 of POCSO Act, in Crime No.6 of

2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had sent

his half nude photo to the school group and he was chatting with his

girl friend and exchanged photos between ourselves, inadvertently he

sent a photo to a school group. Hence, the complaint was given by the

School Headmaster, the case has been registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that

the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the

prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence,

he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).appearing for the

respondent submitted that the petitioner was working as a System &

Network Admin in the computer department in the defacto complainant

school. He further submitted that he had sent his half nude photo to

the school group and he was chatting with his girl friend and

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

exchanged photos between ourselves, inadvertently he sent a photo to a

school group. Hence, the complaint was give by the School Headmaster.

He further submitted that there is no victim in this case. However, he

vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner..

5.Considering the fact that except this allegation, no other

allegation against this petitioner and there is no previous case

pending as against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of

fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before

the learned Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO

Act, Chengalpattu, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a

bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with two

sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent

police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further

condition that:

(a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs

and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned

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 at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

(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 SC