High CourtsSingle Bench

XXXXXXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 August 2022 · Citation: (2022) 08 KL CK 0121

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354A(1)(i), 376(2)(N), 450 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5(l), 6, 7, 8, 9(l), 10
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 6003 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

16 paragraphs · 483 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 sole accused in Crime No.437/2022 of the Thadiyittaparamba Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under Sections 354A(1)(i) and 376(2)(N) r/w Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 r/w Section 3, Section 6 r/w Section 5(l), Section 8 r/w Section 7 and Section 10 r/w Section 9(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner had trespassed into the house of the victim aged 17 years, on 14.05.2022 and indulged in a forceful sexual intercourse with her and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Shri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution case is false and that the incident as alleged had never occurred. He further pointed out that petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2022 and considering the age of the petitioner, the continued detention may not be warranted.

5.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that petitioner is alleged to have committed a heinous crime and the victim became pregnant which was identified through medical examination. It was further pointed out that petitioner and the victim are schoolmates and hence releasing the petitioner on bail would cause prejudice to the prosecution case.

6.

Petitioner turned a major only on 07.04.2022. He is alleged to have committed rape upon the victim on 14.05.2022. Considering the young age of the petitioner and the period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that the further detention of the petitioner is not required, especially since the final report has already been filed.

7.

In the result, this application is allowed 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 co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner and the victim shall not interact with each other directly or indirectly until conclusion of the trial.

(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

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

(f) Petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of Thadiyittaparamba Police Station or within the Police Station limits of the place of residence of the victim.

(g) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

8.

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.