High CourtsSingle Bench

Joshy vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 January 2023 · Citation: (2023) 01 KL CK 0134

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354, 354A(1)(i), 376(2), 376(2)(n) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3(a), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 11(iv), 12
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 205 Of 2023
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

14 paragraphs · 403 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.1431/2022 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), 376(2) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Sections 4(1), 3(a), 6(1), 5(1) and Section 12 r/w Section 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

According to the prosecution, the accused who was the owner of a lodge in Ernakulam, had, from 29.06.2022 till 01.07.2022 committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim after seducing her with money and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.D.Feroze, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that even going by the prosecution case, the victim had been indulging in prostitution and that the petitioner was not aware about the age of the victim.

5.

Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that even though the final report has been filed, continued detention of the petitioner is essential taking note of the seriousness of the offences committed.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions. Having regard to the period of detention already undergone and the circumstances arising in the case, including the fact that the final report has already been filed, I am of the view that petitioner can be released on bail on strict conditions.

7.

Accordingly, I allow this application 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.