JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 389(1) & (3) Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence made in Special Sessions Case No.71 of 2020 (Old Special Sessions Case No.164 of 2014) on the file of the Principal Special Court for the exclusive trial of POCSO Act cases, Salem dated 14.12.2021 and grant bail to the Petitioner/Appellant No.2/Accused No.3.) 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment dated 14.12.2021 passed in Special Sessions Case No.71 of 2020 (Old Special Sessions Case No.164 of 2014) on the file of the Principal Special Court for the exclusive trial of POCSO Act cases, Salem and to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above appeal. 2. The petitioner, who was Accused No.3 in Special Session Case No.71 of 2020 before the Principal Special Court for the exclusive trial of POCSO Act cases, Salem, was convicted and sentenced as follows on 14.12.2021: S.No. Provision under which Convicted Sentence 1 Section 366 IPC 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 2 Sections 5(1) r/w.6, r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner/3rd Accused along with 1st Accused has filed Crl.A.No.398 of 2022 along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail in respect of petitioner/3rd accused alone. 4. Heard Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 5. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is the grand daughter of the complainant viz., Karupaiyi, who was under the custody of the de-facto complainant. The victim was in love with the 2nd Accused. Initially, the 1st Accused was instigating the victim to marry him. While so, on 08.10.2013 morning, based on the instruction given by the 2nd Accused the victim girl left her house and thereafter A1 and A3 with the intention of subjecting the victim to sexual intercourse with A2 have kidnapped her and taken her to Medavakkam, Chennai and took the house for rent and awaited for the arrival of A2 who was residing at Jharkhand. While so, on 10.10.2013, when the 3rd accused had gone to shopping, the 1st accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl and repeated the same on 11.10.2013. When the 2nd accused, came to Chennai, all the accused had taken the victim to the nearby temple and the 2nd accused married her by tying thali and thereafter A2 had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. 6. After completing the investigation, the respondent/police has filed a final report against the 1st Accused for the offences under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and u/s. 6 r/w. 5(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012; the 2nd Accused for the offences under Section 363, 366 r/w. 109 I.P.C. and u/s. 6 r/w.5 (1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and the 3rd accused for the offences under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and u/s. 6 r/w. 5(1) r/w 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. 7. Since the 2nd Accused passed away during the pendency of the trial, the charge as against the 2nd accused got abated. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side found the accused A1 & A3 “guilty” and convicted and sentenced them as follows: Accuse d.No. Provision under which convicted Sentence A1 Section 366 IPC 3 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months months simple imprisonment. Sections 5(l) r/w.6, of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. A3 Section 366 IPC 3 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months months simple imprisonment. Sections 5(l) r/w.6 r/w.17, of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrayed as A3 and the allegation as against the petitioner is that she abetted other accused in commission of the alleged offences. He would further submit that even as per the Charge Sheet, A1 is said to have committed the offence, when the Petitioner had gone out for shopping and there is absolutely no material to show that the Petitioner has abetted the other accused to commit the crime. He would further submit that even as per the Charge Sheet, A1 is said to have committed the offence, when the Petitioner had gone out for shopping and there is absolutely no material to show that the Petitioner has abetted the other accused to commit the crime. He would further submit that the P.W.1- Grand mother of the victim girl who is the complainant has also not supported the case of the prosecution. However, she has not been treated hostile by the prosecution. He would further submit that immediately after the occurrence the victim has not been examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is his further contention that P.W.4- owner of the house, in his evidence has not spoken about the presence of the Petitioner at Chennai. He deposed that he had seen only the 1st and 3rd accused along with the victim girl in the house. It is his further submission that the petitioner has raised valid grounds in the appeal and prayed for suspension of sentence and bail to the petitioner. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt by examining thirteen witnesses and marking twenty two exhibits and four material objects. Hence, he opposed the grant of suspension of sentence and bail to the petitioner. 11. The petitioner has raised substantial grounds in the appeal, which require detailed appraisal. Moreover, as per the charge A1 is stated to have committed the offence when the petitioner had gone out for shopping. Further, the appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail. 12. Further, the appeal is not likely to be taken up in the near future. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of suspension of sentence and bail. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and the sentence of imprisonment is suspended and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Special Court for the exclusive Trial of POCSO Act Cases, Salem; (ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the trial Court may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book and mobile numbers to ensure their identity; (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on 1st working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until the disposal of the appeal and if he is not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence, as directed by the trial Court; (iv) Independent of Section 317 Cr.P.C., in case of any emergency due to treatment, hospitalization, sudden death of her relatives, etc., the petitioner shall also intimate the jurisdictional police about the details of place of visit, name of the contact person with Aadhar card or any other photo identity of that person along with reasons therefor and the number of days of absence in the locality, before leaving Tamil Nadu; (v) The petitioner shall furnish her mobile number, which shall not be changed till the issue comes to a logical conclusion and permanent residential address to the police and the trial Court. The petitioner is permitted to change the portability and not the mobile number; and (vi) The petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of the respondent/police station.