T Jegan vs. The Inspector Of Police

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. While acknowledging that the offence was committed in the lodge run by the petitioner and that the manager was also an accused, the Court noted the absence of documents proving ownership of the lodge by the petitioner. The Court also observed that the petitioner had no prior bad antecedents. The reasoning suggests that despite the petitioner's administrative role and the collection of GST in his name, the lack of direct involvement and ownership, coupled with no prior criminal record, weighed in favour of granting bail. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest or appearance within fifteen days, subject to specific conditions including executing a bond, submitting identity proof, daily appearance before the police, cooperation with the investigation, and not indulging in further offences or tampering with witnesses. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, T Jegan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 15 of 2024, registered for offences under Sections 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 43(a), 4 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that a minor boy booked a room in the petitioner's lodge and had a sexual relationship with a minor girl. The petitioner, who is the lessee of the lodge, claimed he was not present at the scene of occurrence and that the owner of the lodge is one Chidambaram Natarajan. The petitioner argued that the mistake was committed by the lodge manager and he had no connection with the offence. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioner as he was in charge of the lodge. Documents related to GST and other taxes were collected in the petitioner's name.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as the lessee and administrator of the lodge, is vicariously liable for the offence committed within the premises under the POCSO Act, despite not being directly involved in the sexual act? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation of liability for offences committed on leased property). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is merely a lessee of the lodge and not its owner, with the actual owner being Chidambaram Natarajan. He argued that he was not present during the occurrence and that the offence was a mistake by the lodge manager. He asserted that he has no connection with the alleged offence. Respondent's arguments: The respondent police accepted that the petitioner was running the lodge on lease with an oral understanding and that there was no written agreement. They noted that the investigation agency had collected documents showing payment of GST and other taxes in the petitioner's name, indicating his administrative control over the lodge.