High CourtsSingle Bench

Jishnu Prasad vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 August 2022 · Citation: (2022) 08 KL CK 0005

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354A(1), 450, 506 · Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8, 9(l), 10
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 5661 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

13 paragraphs · 437 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

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

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.474/2022 of Karunagapplly Police Station, Idukki. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 450, 354A(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 r/w Section 8, 9(l) r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

The prosecution case is that petitioner after creating a relationship with the minor victim, aged, 16 years through telephone and thereafter trespassed into the house of the victim and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and thereby committed the offences alleged against him.

4.

Sri.K.Rakesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution case is false and no incident as alleged had occurred. It was further pointed out that petitioner had not indulged in any penetrative sexual assault on the victim.

5.

Smt.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the petitioner had committed the offences and was arrested on 24.06.2022 and thereafter final report was filed on 27.06.2022. It was further pointed out that while giving the first information statement, the victim had alleged penetrative sexual assault, however, when statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was taken, the victim did not divulge the allegation of penetrative sexual assault.

6.

Having regard to the circumstances and on an appreciation of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that since the victim had not revealed an instance of penetrative sexual assault, when statement under Section 164 Cr.PC was taken, the continued detention of the petitioner is not required. Accordingly, this application for bail is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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.