XXX Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The petitioners are mother and daughter. When the second petitioner was minor, it is alleged that the third respondent herein had physical relationship with her. That led to registration of Crime No.55 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station under POCSO Act. The third respondent was arrested and he came out on bail after about 50 days. The specific allegation of the petitioners is that the third respondent is continuing to threaten them. In this regard, more than one complaint was given before the first respondent as well as second respondent. The allegations made by the petitioners cannot be ignored. A victim under POCSO Act deserves to be protected. Since the petitioners are residing within the jurisdictional limits of the second respondent, the second respondent is specifically mandated to ensure the physical safety of the petitioners. The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station is directed to take note of the alle gations made by the petitioners and move the jurisdictional Court for cancelling bail. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. It is for the jurisdictional Court to consider the materials and take appropriate action in accordance with law after putting the third respondent on notice.

(3.) This criminal original petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.