VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the first and second respondents / police for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 147, 166, 323, 341, 342, 348, 365 of IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(XII) of The Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sec. 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 1998 in Crime No.887 of 2011, seeks anticipatory bail.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner while he was working as Sub Inspector of Police, on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant alleging that she and her family members were taken by their police personnels came in the motorcycle on 22/11/2011. Thereafter, eight police personnels came in a van and searched their house and took away cell phones, cash and also nine persons including the defacto complainant and thereafter, they were taken to deserted place and four police personnels committed rape on four woman including the defacto complainant. Insofar as the petitioner, even according to the defacto complainant, he brought them to deserted place and left them and went to police station. After investigation, now the respondents police filed final report and it is pending for taking cognizance. While pending investigation, the petitioner filed petition for direction before this Court in Crl.OP.No.3156 of 2017 for direction and by order dtd. 16/2/2017, this Court directed the petitioner to surrender and file bail petition and also ordered that the same may be considered on the same day. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered before the court below and also filed petition for bail in Crl.MP.No.241 of 2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Villupuram. It was dismissed by order dtd. 16/5/2022 and also issued non bailable warrant for the reason that after filing petition, the petitioner was not present at the time of passing order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.524 of 2022. It was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file petition for anticipatory bail. Though offence was registered under SC/ST Act, the petitioner filed petition for anticipatory bail for the reason that there is no prima facie case made out as against the petitioner to attract any of the offence under SC/ST Act. Even according to the final report, the petitioner was not charged for heinous offence of rape nor any prima facie exists as against the petitioner for the commission of offence under SC/ST Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the intervenor / defacto complainant submitted that the petitioner is the master brain behind the entire crime, since he only had taken the victims to the deserted place and committed rape on the victims. Though no charge as against the petitioner under Sec. 376 of IPC, the petitioner and other police personnels involved in the crime and as such, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Further, the crime is of the year 2011 and even till now, the victims are not able to get any justice. Even after transfer of investigation, the second respondent failed to take any steps to secure the petitioner. After completion of investigation, they filed simply absconding charge sheet. That apart, even in the year 2017, this Court directed the petitioner to surrender and file bail petition. The petitioner approached the court below only in the year 2022 after five years. There is no explanation from the petitioner for the enormous delay to file petition to surrender and seeking bail. Though departmental action has been taken as against the petitioner, again he has been reinstated and he is very much working as Inspector under the Tamil Nadu Police Service. All the police personnels committed very serious and heinous offence as against the victims and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required and prayed for dismissal of the petition.