High CourtsSingle Bench

Shabina vs Vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0377

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 315, 323, 354, 354B, 376(2)(h), 376(2)(n), 506(i) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3(a), 4, 5(l)(j)(ii)(q), 6, 7, 8
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 2399 Of 2021
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

25 paragraphs · 487 words

Shircy V, J

1.

Apprehending arrest, this petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 96 of 2021 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354B, 376(2)(h), 376(2)(n), 506(i), 323 and 315 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read

with Section 3(a), Section 6 read with Section 5(l)(j)(ii)(q), Section 8 read with Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The prosecution allegation is that the 1st accused was having close acquaintance with the victim involved in this case, who is a minor child, and had

committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and made her pregnant. This petitioner, who is a relative of the 1st accused had given certain

tablets to the victim to consume the same to avoid pregnancy and thereby she has committed the aforesaid offences.

3.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she is absolutely innocent of the allegations levelled against him. It is true that she is a close

relative of the 1st accused. But she was not aware of the relationship of the victim with this petitioner and the other allegations levelled against her.

But she apprehends arrest and hence this petition.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that of course the victim was pregnant as a result of the sexual assault committed by the 1st accused.

But her pregnancy was not aborted by the intervention of this petitioner as alleged by the prosecution.

5.

Considering the nature of the accusation levelled against this petitioner, a lady aged 31 years, and also on perusal of records, I find that sufficient

materials are not available to infer that custodial interrogation of this petitioner is inevitable in this case. It is also to be noted that the 1st accused had

already been arrested and he was enlarged on bail subsequently.

Therefore, this petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each

in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

(iii) He shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.

(iv) He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

 (v) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.