High CourtsSingle Bench

XXXXXXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 September 2022 · Citation: (2022) 09 KL CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 9(l)(m), 10
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 6703 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 · 471 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.276 of 2022 of Vengara Police Station, Malappuram District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 10 r/w Section 9(l)(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.

The prosecution case is that, in March 2022, the petitioner took the minor boy, aged only 7 years, and after forcing the victim to sit on his lap committed sexual assault by compelling him to hold his private parts and repeated the same on several occasions, thereby committing the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.U.K.Devdas, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that the incident as alleged had never occurred. It was further submitted that since the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022, the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted.

5.

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and submitted that, petitioner has committed a heinous crime, and considering the young age of the victim and that the investigation has not yet completed, bail ought not to be granted. It was further submitted that there is every possibility of the victim being threatened/influenced by the petitioner and, therefore, bail ought not to be granted.

6.

I have perused the statement of the victim and have also considered the rival contentions.

7.

Taking note of the nature of allegations and the period of detention already undergone, 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.

8.

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 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 his/her family members.

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

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

(f) Petitioner shall not enter the Police Station limits, where the victim resides, until conclusion of trial.

9.

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.