High CourtsSingle Bench

Chandu vs State Of Kerala And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 April 2021 · Citation: (2021) 04 KL CK 0121

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Haripal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 118, 328, 354(B), 354(D), 363, 370(4), 376(2)(n) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 — Section 3(a), 4, 5(l), 6, 11(iv)(v), 12, 16, 17 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66(E), 67(B) · Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 77
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 3112 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

27 paragraphs · 475 words
1.

This is an application for bail moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in

Crime 1399/2020 of Kuthiyathode police station in Alappuzha district. The case was registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given

by the victim on 17.03.2021, alleging offence punishable under Sections 363, 370(4), 376(2)(n), 354-B, 354-D, 118, 328 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, Sections 4 read with 3(a), 6 read with 5(l), and 12 r/w 11(iv)(v), 17 r/w 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)

Act 2012, Sections 66E & 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act,

2015.

2.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3.

According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are husband and wife; they are newly married couple and the victim is the relative of the second

petitioner, who is the third accused in the crime; that they did not commit any overt act, they were not aware of the mischief played by the first

accused; the first accused and the victim had attended some functions in the house of the petitioners and that, had there been knowledge about their

relationship, they would not have encouraged them, etc. The petitioners were arrested on 17.03.2021; the second petitioner is a lady who has to apply

for an examination and the last date for filing the application is nearing.

4.

I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

5.

The first accused/the prime accused, has already been released on bail. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had aided and abetted the

commission of the crime. They are in judicial custody since 17.03.2021 and the investigation has progressed considerably. Hence continued detention

of the petitioners is not necessary.

Having considered all aspects, I think it is just and proper to release the petitioners on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the trial court;

ii) They shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

iii) They shall not enter Kuthiyathode police station limits, until further orders;

iv) They shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;

v) They shall appear before the committal/trial court as and when required;

vi) They shall strictly follow the various guidelines issued by the State and Central Governments with respect to keeping of social distancing in the

wake of Covid 19 pandemic;

vii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.

The bail application is allowed as above.