High CourtsSingle Bench

XXXXXXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 19 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 KL CK 0165

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354D, 376(2)(n) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3(a), 4, 5(i), 5(j)(ii), 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No.4797 Of 2022
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

14 paragraphs · 454 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

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

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.354/2022 of Kollam West Police Station, Kollam District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 r/w Section 3(a) Section 6 r/w Section 5(j)(ii) and Section 5(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

3.

The prosecution allegation is that, petitioner committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on 17 year old victim during January 2022 and thereafter, impregnated her and thus committed the offences alleged against him.

4.

Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the victim were in a relationship and that the allegations are totally false. It was further pointed out that the petitioner and the victim are intending to get married, which is evident from the notarized affidavit filed by the mother of the victim, produced as Annexure II. It was further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 25.06.2022 and that the investigation is almost complete and no purpose would be served by continuing the detention of the petitioner.

5.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand opposed the grant of bail and submitted that there is every chance that the petitioner may influence the witnesses or even intimidate them .

6.

A perusal of the case diary reveals that prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime. However, since the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 25.06.2022, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not required in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) 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.

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or her family members.

(iv) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(v) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

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.