XXXXXXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J.

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the sole accused in Crime No.36/2024 of Peruvannamuzhy Police Station, Kozhikode under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

Perused the relevant materials form part of the case diary including the 164 statement given by the victim before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra.

The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant, who is a minor studying in the 9th class at St.George HSS School, Kallathvayal, subjected to sexual harassment by the accused, at the NCC camp in Koodathal HSS on 08.05.2023 and on multiple occasions in between 01.06.2023 and January, 2024. Therefore, the petitioner committed aggravated form of sexual assault, punishable under Sections 354 A(1)(i), 354 A(2) of Indian Penal Code and Section 10 r/w 9(f), 9(j) (i), 9(l) of POCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the submission that since the petitioner is a Chemistry teacher and also NCC Master of St.George HSS School, Kallathvayal, he will not commit any offences as alleged. Further, the petitioner’s wife also is a teacher working in the same school and the petitioner’s two children are also studying in the very same school. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire allegations are false and the defacto complainant is having psychiatric issues. It is argued that since the entire allegations are false, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail to protect his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail in a case where the defacto complainant had given candid statement regarding the sexual assault at the instance of the accused in a more exhaustive manner supported by statements. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused herein, who is a teacher of the defacto complainant, raised unnecessary allegation of mental illness to the defacto complainant and on investigation the same also found against. Highlighting the necessity of custodial interrogation and medical examination, the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

On perusal of the statement of the defacto complainant form part of the records placed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution case is well made out and the same would require an effective investigation by questioning and conducting medical examination of the petitioner. In such a case, grant of anticipatory bail would defeat the purpose of investigation. Therefore, the petitioner doesn’t deserve anticipatory bail.

Hence this bail application is dismissed directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer and to co-operate with the investigation within 7 days from today.