High CourtsSingle Bench

Muhummad Bilal M vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 28 November 2022 · Citation: (2022) 11 KL CK 0313

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 376 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9329 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 · 501 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

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

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.536 of 2022 of Nadapuram Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 apart from Section 4 r/w Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

According to the prosecution, on 17-10-2022, the victim was kidnapped from her lawful guardian and the accused subjected her to penetrative sexual assault on the said date and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri. P.Jeril Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution case is false and that even the date of the alleged incident has been purposefully changed to make it appear that the victim is a minor. The learned counsel also contended that the date of birth of the victim is 18-10-2004 and therefore she had turned a major on the alleged date of occurrance. However, as per the prosecution allegations, the alleged incident occurred on 17-10-2022, one day before she attained majority. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is only aged 18 years and the circumstances would reveal that petitioner and the victim were in a relationship and that the petitioner having been arrested on 19-10-2022, further detention ought not to be permitted.

5.

Smt. M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Persecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious and that since investigation is still continuing, petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions.

7.

Admittedly, the victim became a major on 18-10-2022. Petitioner is only 18 years in age. Having regard to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that both of them are in a relationship and that taking note of the age of the victim as well as that of the petitioner, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not essential, despite, the investigation still continuing.

In the result, this application 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 appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) 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.

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

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

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.