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
20 paragraphs · 369 wordsShircy V, J
Application for regular bail.
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 22 of 2021 of Athirappilly Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 6 read
with Section 5(l) and (m) and Section 12 read with Section 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 342, 370, 449 and
376AB of Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that during 2020 this petitioner had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor child aged 7 years at her
residence on various occasions and thereby committed the alleged offences.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has been in custody since 08.04.2021. He is absolutely innocent, but he has been falsely
implicated in the case. Hence, this application.
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation of the case is well in progress. But the offences alleged against this petitioner are
grave and serious in nature. He has committed the offences against the minor girl not only on one occasion, but on various days and hence, granting of
bail would give opportunity to repeat the offences and if so that would definitely affect the investigation of the case adversely.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.
Of course, the petitioner has been in custody since the date of his arrest, i.e. 08.04.2021. The minor involved in this case is aged only 7 years. The
place of incident is her own house and that will add the gravity of the offences alleged against him. The petitioner is residing near to the residence of
the victim. Considering the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, the age of the victim, the fact that he is her neighbour and the other
facts and circumstances involved in this case, I think that if he is released on bail, there is every possibility to intimidate the minor child and to repeat
similar offences. Such being the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get an order for his release on bail just considering the period of
incarceration undergone by him in this case.
Dismissed.