Muraleedharan vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2413 of 2020 of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging

offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 (1) IPC. The offences under Sections 7 r/w. Section 9(n) r/w. Section 10 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act') is also alleged.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner is the grandfather of the victim, aged 14 years. The allegation is that, since the month of February, 2020,

the petitioner has been sexually abusing the victim by exhibiting his nudity in front of her and by pressing her breast and also by touching her body with

sexual intent. The mother of the victim girl is no more. Her father left her. Now she is residing with the grandmother. Because of the harassment

from the petitioner, the victim tried to commit suicide. Thereafter, the present complaint is filed by the victim.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the 2nd bail application filed by the petitioner. The counsel submitted that this Court granted

permission to file a second bail application after ten days as per order dated 27.11.2020 in B.A No.7925 of 2020, and hence this second bail application

is filed. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is arrested on 4.11.2020 and he is in custody from that date onwards. According to the counsel, there

is some dispute between the petitioner and the grandmother of the victim. The petitioner and the grandmother of the victim were living together. She

wants the property. There was some dispute about the property between the petitioner and the grandmother. Hence, this false case is filed at the

instance of the victim girl. The counsel submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is

suffering from different illness and therefore, he may be released on bail.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor made available the First Information Statement given by the victim, who

is a 14 year old girl child.

After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case, in which the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. The prosecutor made available the

First Information Statement. I read the statement of the victim girl aged 14 years. She says that she lost her mother. Her father also left her. Now she

is relying her grandmother and she is residing with her grandmother. Now according to her, the petitioner is sexually abusing her by pressing her

breast touching her body with sexual intent. Because of the sexual abuse of the petitioner, she even try to commit suicide. This the version in the First

Information Statement. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. These are matters to be investigated by the Investigating

Officer. But considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner is not entitled bail at this stage.

Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P

v Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272.) The apex court held that, the following factors are to the taken into consideration while

considering the application for bail.

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

(iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.

It is true that there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be decided on the basis of the facts and

circumstances of that case. In the light of the general principles laid down in the above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed.