Prakash vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1891/2020 of Anchalamoodu Police Station, Kollam District. The above case is registered against the

petitioner, alleging offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 7 read with 8, Section 9(m)

(n) read with 10 and Section 11(i) (iii) read with 12 of the POCSO Act is also alleged.

Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is the other offence alleged against the petitioner.

The prosecution case in nut-shell is like this:- The petitioner is the father of the victim girls aged 14 and 10 years. It is alleged that the petitioner,

who is the father of the victim exhibited his nudity in front of the children and also sexually abused the children.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this is a false case foisted against the petitioner at the instance of the wife of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there is some matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and his wife. Because of that enmity

this false case is registered using the children. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, earlier a petition was filed by the wife of the

petitioner against him alleging offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. But, the Police after investigation concluded that, no case is made out.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this is a false case foisted just to humiliate the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor made available the statement given by the victim girl.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, this Court may not disbelieve the statement of the victim girls at this stage.

After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case, in which orders under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be passed. I perused the statement of the victim

girls. I cannot disbelieve the statement of these victim girls, while considering an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The correctness of the

statement is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. But this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will surrender before the Investigating Officer and will co-

operate with the investigation. Therefore, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions.

The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today.

If the petitioner surrender before the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer can interrogate him. After interrogation if the petitioner is

arrested, he will be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day.

At that stage, if any bail application is filed by the petitioner after giving prior notice to the Prosecutor concerned, the Court will consider the bail

application preferably on the date of filing of the same itself.