High CourtsSingle Bench

Vinoy vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 19 January 2023 · Citation: (2023) 01 KL CK 0178

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 9(f), 9(l), 9(m), 10 · Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 75
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 270 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

13 paragraphs · 507 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

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

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.984/2022 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur District, alleging offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 8 r/w Section 7, Section 10 r/w Section 9(f), 9(l), 9(m) and Section 8 r/w Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

3.

According to the prosecution, the accused who is a teacher in the school where the victim is studying in the 3rd Standard had, on more than one occasion sexually assaulted the victim by caressing her buttocks and committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that petitioner was arrested on 21.12.2022 and has been in custody since then. The learned counsel relies upon Annexure 3 representation submitted by the Parent- Teacher Association and the staff of the school to the police, stating that petitioner is a well reputed and acceptable person who had never indulged in any such sexual assault on any student. It was further submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are based upon a misunderstanding and that petitioner ought not be continued in detention, any further.

5.

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended the allegations are serious and that the victim has specifically alleged the nature of act committed by the petitioner. It was also pointed out that considering the circumstances that petitioner is a teacher, releasing him on bail, at this juncture, would send a wrong message to the society.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the statement of the victim as well as the alleged representation submitted by the Parent-Teacher Association. Even though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, considering the period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that further detention would not serve any purpose.

7.

Accordingly, I allow this application 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.

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.