High CourtsSingle Bench

Nibin Vargheese vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 7 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 KL CK 0022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 354A(1)(ii), 354D(1)(ii), 372, 511 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8, 11(v), 12, 16 · Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 75 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66(E)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 7688 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

14 paragraphs · 476 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 first accused in Crime No.824 of 2022 of Panangad Police Station, Ernakulam alleging offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(ii), 354D(1)(ii), 511, 372 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 8 r/w Section 7, Section 12 r/w Section 11(v) and Section 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 apart from Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3.

According to the prosecution, during the month of April 2022, petitioner who is the first accused with the consent and connivance of the 2nd accused, committed sexual assault on the minor victim aged 17 years and thereby committed the offences alleged against him.

4.

Sri.Satheesh, 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 the main allegation is against the 2nd accused who is none other than the mother of the victim and only a minor role is attributed to the petitioner compared to the other allegations.

5.

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the release of petitioner on bail, at this juncture would cause prejudice to the investigation, especially since the 3rd accused has not yet been arrested.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions. The allegations against the petitioner is that on a day in the month of April, 2022, petitioner hugged the victim, with the encouragement of the 2nd accused. Petitioner was arrested on 23.08.2022 and has been in custody since then. Taking note of the nature of allegations against the petitioner, I am of the view that continued detention would not essential for the purpose of investigation.

7.

Accordingly, I allow this bail 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 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.