CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Subeesh P.M vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 4 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 KL CK 0012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 109, 363, 376(2)(h), 376(3), 450 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(I), 6, 15, 16
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 7355 Of 2023
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

6 paragraphs · 343 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.725/2023 of Koyilandy police station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(h), 376(3), 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 r/w. 5(I) of the POCSO Act.

3.

Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, aged about 15 years, on several occasions. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the victim’s mother were classmates and recently, they re-established their friendship and since the father of the victim is no more, the petitioner supported the family of the victim and he was in a cordial relationship with the victim and her family. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner rejected proposal of the victim's mother for marriage, a false case has been foisted against him.

4.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the statement recorded from the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the medical examination report would reveal that the victim had been subjected to penetrative sexual assault, on several occasions. It is submitted that the offences under Section 109 of the IPC and Sections 15 and 16 of the POCSO Act have also been now alleged against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner had taken the victim away from the custody of her mother and had subjected her to sexual assault and rape.

5.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having regard to the allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The allegations are serious. Even on the petitioner’s own showing, he was very close with the victim’s family. There is every chance of the victim and other witnesses being influenced or intimidated, if the petitioner is released on bail. Therefore, it is not conducive to release the petitioner on bail. The bail application will stand dismissed.