High CourtsSingle Bench

Arun Boban vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 KL CK 0032

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354(A)(1)(ii)(2), 363, 509 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 11(iv), 12, 16(1), 17
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 620 Of 2021
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

23 paragraphs · 493 words
1.

Application for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1010/2020 of Aloor Police Station, Thrissur District registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 363, 354A(1)(ii)(2) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 r/w 11(iv) and 17 r/w 16(1) of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

The allegation against this petitioner is that on 27.11.2020 at 11.00 a.m., the petitioner kidnapped the victim aged 14 years from a place near her

residence and took her in his motor cycle to different places. Thereafter, she was forced to sent nude photographs to his mobile phone and thus he

committed sexual harassment against the victim child. Thereby he committed the aforesaid offences.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled against him are absolutely false and baseless. In fact, this petitioner aged

only 20 years is having a love affair with the victim. One day he has just taken her in his motor cycle for a ride to a nearby place and left her safe at

her residence. He never asked to sent her nude photographs as alleged by the prosecution and he has not committed any offence as alleged. It is also

pointed out that he is a student pursuing his studies in an I.T institute, but he apprehends arrest and torture by the police hence this application.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the mobile phone belonging to the petitioner has already been seized from his residence and the

investigation of the case is well in progress though he has not been arrested.

5.

Considering the age of the petitioner, the present stage of the investigation as well the fact that the mobile phone owned by him had already been

seized by the investigating agency no doubt they did not require the presence of him in custody to proceed with the investigation of the case.

Therefore, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to this petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like

sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of his arrest. One surety shall be his father.

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

(iii) He shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.

(iv) He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(v) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.