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
26 paragraphs · 543 wordsAshok Menon, J
Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC.
The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.127/2021 of Erumely Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under
Sections 354(D), 450, 376(2), (f),(n) IPC and under Sections 4, 3(a), 6, 5(1)(n), 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that while the victim was studying in standard IX, from June 2018 onwards the victim was subjected to various
types of sexual harassment and sexual assault till January, 2021 and she was also subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the applicant, who is 25
years old and a neighbour of the victim girl, who is now 16 years old.
The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true and that he was romantically inclined towards the girl and that they were in a
relationship. But the girl subsequently switched her affection to someone else and on questioning about that, she was irked as a result of which this
false and frivolous case has been registered against the applicant. He is not responsible for any harassment as alleged, apart from the intimacy he had
with her. He was arrested on 8.3.2021 and continues in remand. Investigation is already completed and final report also has been filed and therefore,
no purpose would be served by further incarceration of the applicant. He is willing to cooperate with the trial.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant is a neighbour of the victim and in case he is released on bail, there is every possibility that
he may influence or intimidate her, and therefore, he may not be granted bail and he may be subjected to custodial trial.
After having heard both sides, I find that the applicant is a person without any criminal antecedents. He is willing to cooperate with the trial. The
fact that he may pose a threat to the victim cannot be ruled out because he is a neighbour and is also distantly related to the girl. Under the
circumstances, stringent conditions can be imposed, but I do not find any reason for custodial trial of the applicant.
In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following further conditions:
(i) He shall not enter Kottayam District, except for the purpose of trial until the prime witnesses in this case are examined. The applicant is at liberty to apply for
relaxation of this condition before the trial court once the prime witnesses are examined.
(ii) He shall appear before the trial court as and when required.
(iii) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence.
(iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.
In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.