High CourtsSingle Bench

Shibu C.George vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 16 February 2024 · Citation: (2024) 02 KL CK 0145

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.G. Ajithkumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354, 354A(1)(i) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8, 9(f), 10
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1003 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

15 paragraphs · 440 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. 99/2024 of Kuruppampady Police Station. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i) of IPC and Sections 8 r/w7, 10 r/w 9(f) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)

3.

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

4.

The prosecution allegation is that, the accused with intent to commit sexual assault on victim, who is a minor girl aged 17 years, on 17/1/2024 at about 3.30 pm, pressed on her right breast and back. The petitioner is the teacher of the victim.

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. It is submitted that the investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably.

7.

The petitioner is in judicial custody from 24/1/2024 onwards. He is now under suspension from service and therefore, there is no possibility for his interacting with the victim.

8.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

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; and

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not enter the limits of Kuruppampady Police Station, except for the purpose of reporting before the investigating officer, as and when directed.

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