High CourtsSingle Bench

XXXX vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0229

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 323 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 11, 11(iii), 12 · Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2016 — Section 75
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 4691 Of 2021
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

26 paragraphs · 509 words

Ashok Menon, J.

1.

This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

2.

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.409/2021 of Ambalapuzha Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable

under Section 323 of the I.P.C.; under Sections 11, 11(iii) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act; and under Section 75 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2016.

3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.05.2021 the applicant, who was the father of the victim girl aged 16 years, was assaulted by beating

and kicking her and he also had shown obscene images and videos to the victim while she was alone at the house with the intention to corrupt her

mind. Consequently, the applicant was arrested on 28.05.2021 and remanded to judicial custody.

4.

The applicant states that the allegations are all untrue and it is a foisted story cooked up by the de facto complainant with the assistance of her

mother, who is on inimical terms with the applicant. It is also submitted that the minor daughter of the applicant was having a love affair with a man in

the neighbour and the applicant has allegedly admonished the girl several times, not to continue with that relationship. In order to wreak vengeance on

the applicant, she has come up with this false case of assault. The applicant has no other criminal antecedents, he is willing to cooperate with the

investigation and he has been in custody for a fairly long time. Therefore, he seeks regular bail.

5.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the applicant has criminal antecedents for being involved in offences under the I.P.C., but none of

them is for grave offences.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no need for further detention of the applicant, particularly in these pandemic times.

However, since the minor victim is staying in the house with her mother, it will not be proper if the applicant resides in the same house. Hence, the

application for bail is allowed with stringent conditions.

As a result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the 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, on the following other conditions:

i)He shall not enter the house where the victim is residing till the trial is completed;

ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation;

iii) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses; and

iv) 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 apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional Court.