High CourtsSingle Bench

Praveen vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 April 2022 · Citation: (2022) 04 KL CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354D, 363 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8 , 11, 12 · Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 77
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2413 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

13 paragraphs · 520 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail

2.

The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.112/2022 of Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad District alleging commission of offences under under Sections 363 & 354 D of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7 r/w 8 and 11 r/w 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 along with Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner kidnaped the minor victim from the lawful custody of her parents and took her to a place named Kaduvakuzhy and committed sexual assualt on her by hugging and kissing her. There is also an allegation that the petitioner forced the minor victim to consume beer at the house of the victim.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner had not sexually assaulted the minor victim in any manner. It is submitted that the minor victim was forced to give a statement against the petitioner owing to the fact that her parents objected to the friendship between the petitioner and the minor victim. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for 42 days and his continued detention is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that the circumstances of the case are pointed out from the record and states that there are clear allegations in the First Information Statement which indicate that the petitioner had committed the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that the question of consent does not arise as the victim is admittedly a minor.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 42 days and since his continued detention does not appear to be necessary for the purposes of any investigation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to following conditions.

In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The Petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.112/2022 of Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad District as and when summoned to do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the victim or any witness in Crime No.112/2022 of Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad District;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.112/2022 of Ambalavayal Police Station, Wayanad District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.