High CourtsSingle Bench

Prasanna Kumar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 20 February 2024 · Citation: (2024) 02 KL CK 0160

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.G. Ajithkumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354D(1)(i), 506(1) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 11(i), 11(iv), 11(vi), 12 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66E
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 888 Of 2024
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 · 408 words

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

1.

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

2.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.25 of 2024 of Melparamba Police Station. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Sections 354D(1)(i), 506(1) of IPC and Section 12 r/w 11(i), 11(iv)(vi) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 66E of IT Act, 2000.

3.

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

4.

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, with the intention of sexual exploitation, provided a mobile phone to the victim girl aged 16 years and started sending obscene photos and videos to her in that mobile phone. She was forced to sent obscene photos to him and he tried to sexually abuse her making use of such photographs.

5.

The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. The investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably and there is no reason or justification for his further detention.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of interfering with the investigation by the petitioner in the event of his release on bail, this petition deserve only to be dismissed.

7.

The petitioner was arrested on 11.01.2024. He has been in custody ever since. Presumably, the investigation has progressed to a considerable extent. Considering the nature of the offence and the period of detention undergone by the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, subject to strict conditions.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for;

(iii) During the bail period, He shall not get involved in any offence; and

(iv) He shall not contact the victim personally or otherwise.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.