High CourtsSingle Bench

Anand Suresh vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 23 June 2022 · Citation: (2022) 06 KL CK 0266

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 354, 354D, 366A, 376(3) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3(a), 3(b), 7, 8, 11(iv), 12
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 4530 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 507 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.478/2022, on the files of the Kilikolloor Police Station, Kollam District, alleging offences under Sections 323, 354, 354D, 366A and 376(3) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(a), 3(b), Section 8 r/w Section 7, Section 12 r/w Section 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

The prosecution case is that on 21.05.2022, after the 15 year old victim went missing, investigation commenced on the basis of information received from the de-facto complainant. Subsequently, petitioner, along with other accused were intercepted in a motor vehicle along with the victim who was in a semi-unconscious stage and thereafter, when the statement of the victim was taken, it was revealed that she was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and trafficking by four persons, thereby committing the offences alleged.

4.

Shri.A.Rajasimhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the only allegation against the petitioner, who is the 3rd accused is that he accompanied accused 1 to 3 along with the victim to Chavara on 21.05.2022. No overt act which constitutes any of the offences alleged against the petitioner is even alleged or made out and that he is totally innocent.

5.

Shri. C.K.Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and though the petitioner was arrested on 21.05.2022, releasing him at this juncture will cause prejudice to the prosecution case.

6.

Shri. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant contended that the petitioner has committed the offence along with the other accused and therefore, he ought not to be released on bail.

7.

Considering the circumstances arising in the case and on perusing the case diary, I am satisfied that the continued detention of the petitioner is not required, especially since he was arrested as early as on 21.05.2022. The age of the petitioner being only 23 also compels me to allow this application.

8.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court having jurisdiction.

ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when required.

iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.

iv) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

v) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

9.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.