CRL OP(MD)/16068/2020 of Ranjith Kumar@Maria Ranjith Vs The Inspector of Police on 31 December 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 31/12/2020

PRESENT

Ranjith Kumar @ Maria Ranjith ... Petitioner/Accused

Vs

State Rep.byThe Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

Crime No.30 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.Esakki, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.Seenivasan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

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

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime No.30 of 2020 on the fileof the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 11(i)and 12 of the POCSO Act in Crime No.30 of 2020 on the file of therespondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

3.After hearing the parties, it is seen that some sort ofdispute arose between the defacto complainant and the petitioner'smother. On 29.11.2020, the mother of the petitioner lodged acomplaint before the Suseenthiram Police Station stating that, thehusband of the defacto complainant had made some indecent advances.The defacto complainant regarding some indecent gesture said to havebeen committed by the petitioner at 07.00 pm., on 28.11.2020 towardsher, lodged a complaint. But did not mention about the presentoccurrence said to have taken place at 05.00 pm., on that date. Inrespect of the said complaint, the petitioner appeared before thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Suseenthiram Police Station for enquiry and has made some explanation. The defacto complainant did not appear. Later on01.12.2020, the defacto complainant made a complaint before the AllWomen Police Station, Nagercoil. Based on which, the present FIRhas been registered. It has been stated that on 28.11.2020 at about05.00 pm., the petitioner had made some indecent gesture to thechildren.

4.From the reading of the entire papers, it reveals that somesort of trouble is existing between these two parties. Consideringthe facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grantanticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in theevent of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judge,Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Nagercoil, and on his executing abond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with twosureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondentPolice or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to thesatisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on furthercondition that:

(a) The petitioner and the sureties shall affix theirphotographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and theMagistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Bookto ensure their identity; (b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent policedaily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as andwhen required for interrogation.

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial; (d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigationor trial; (e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditionshave been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by thelearned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW5560]; and; (f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can beregistered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/-

31/12/2020

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correctcopy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigantconcerned.

TO1. THE JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR POCSO ACT CASES, NAGERCOIL.2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.K.ESAKKI, Advocate ( SR-10[I] dated 04/01/2021 )