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
12 paragraphs · 515 wordsC. Jayachandran, J
The instant application is one for regular bail preferred by the sole accused in Crime No.572/2022 of Nedumangad Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 451, 354 and 354(a)(1)(i) of the Penal Code read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). Offence under Section 3(1),w(i), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also added subsequently.
The prosecution would allege that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant some time prior to the lock down, in the year 2020, at about 4 p.m, when the de facto complainant returned from School. While she was changing her dress, the petitioner caught hold of her breasts and held her close to his chest, thus committing the offences enumerated above.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. In tune with the requirements of Section 15 A(3) and (5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, notice was directed to be served on the victim through the Station House Officer concerned. Accordingly, notice was served on the victim and a memo to that effect dated 13.05.2022 is handed over by the learned Public Prosecutor to this Court. However, the defacto complainant is neither present; nor is there any representation for her.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application. It is taken stock of that the petitioner has been in custody from 15.4.2022 onwards. The purpose of interrogation should have been adequately served by this time. The learned Public Prosecutor has confirmed that the petitioner/accused has no criminal antecedents, whatsoever, except the instant crime. That apart, the FIS is preferred after a period of almost two years from the date of the alleged incident. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no purpose.
In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer on every Saturday between 10 a.m and 11 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, once in a month for a period of two months and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer.
(ii) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence.
(iii) He shall not indulge himself in any other offence while on bail.
(iv) He shall not leave India, except with prior permission of the trial court.
(v) He shall not enter the police station limits of the place where the victim is residing.
(vi)In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to approach the trial court for cancellation of the bail.
