High CourtsSingle Bench

Sasikumar M.S vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 28 November 2022 · Citation: (2022) 11 KL CK 0314

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii), 451 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8, 9(m), 9(p), 10
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9327 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

15 paragraphs · 476 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

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

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.955 of 2022 of Piravam Police Station, Ernakulam District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 451, 354A(1) (i), 354A(1)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 apart from Section 8, 7, 10, 9(m), 9(p) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

According to the prosecution, the accused who is the friend of the victim’s father, trespassed into their house and pressed on the chest of the victim after forcing her to sit on his lap. The prosecution alleges that the accused repeated the said act on the sister of the victim also and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri. Basil Chandy Vavachan, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and that the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was also pointed out that the F.I. Statement itself reveals that the acts alleged to have been committed against the sister of the victim were committed by some other person and that petitioner has been falsely roped into the crime. It was also submitted that, since petitioner was arrested on 30-10-2022, further detention ought not to be permitted in the nature of the allegations.

5.

Smt. M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Persecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious and that the petitioner, if released on bail, may threaten or influence the witnesses.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions.

7.

The allegations against the petitioner are serious, especially, since he is alleged to have sexually assaulted a minor victim and her sister. Even though I notice the mention of a name in the F.I. Statement, considering the circumstances, I am of the view that since petitioner was arrested on 30-10-2022, further detention would not serve any purpose.

In the result, this application is allowed 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.