Allowed

Bhuvanachandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2012Bail Appl./7877/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application in a case involving sexual offences against a minor. The court observed that while the offence is serious, continued custody is unnecessary as other accused are on bail. Bail was granted with strict conditions including surrendering documents and reporting regularly.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail on execution of a bond with two solvent sureties subject to stringent conditions including reporting to the IO and not leaving Thiruvananthapuram District.

Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/14TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7877 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.1555/2011 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2(S):

¶8

BHUVANA CHANDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, SARASWATHY VILASOM NEAR RAILWAY STATION, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.R.VIJAYA KUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENTCOMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

tss

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

B.A. No.7877 of 2012

¶17

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2012

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1555/2011 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 376, 354 and 377 of IPC.

¶20

This is yet another case of sad story of a minor girl who was first sexually assaulted by her step father and then by others. The petitioner is the father of the tuition teacher of the victim, who subjected her to sexual exploitation.

¶21

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is pointed out that he had not committed any act as alleged. It is also pointed out that he has been in custody from 21.9.2012 and his continued custody is unnecessary. It is further contented that all the other accused have been granted bail.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that offence is very serious and the investigation is not yet complete.

¶23

On going through the CD made available for perusal,

¶24

B.A.No.7877/2012 :2:

¶25

the claim of the petitioner, that he is innocent, cannot be accepted since there are sufficient materials available in the CD which show his involvement. It cannot be disputed that the offence is very disturbing one. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody from 21.9.2012 onwards and other accused have been granted bail. A good portion of investigation must have completed by now and there is no apprehension expressed by the investigating agency that if released on bail the petitioner is likely to abscond, it is felt that continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. He can be released on bail imposing stringent conditions. The petition is allowed as follows:

¶26

(1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM-I, Neyyattinkara.

¶27

(2) The learned JFCM shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them before granting bail to the petitioner.

¶28

(3) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Friday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., till final report is filed.

¶29

(4) The petitioner shall produce his original passport before the learned Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶30

B.A.No.7877/2012 :3:

¶31

(5) The petitioner shall not leave Thiruvananthapuram District until further orders.

¶32

(6) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶33

(7) If any of the condition is violated by the petitioner, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the learned Magistrate concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶34

P.BHAVADASAN, Judge.

¶35

okb.

Bhuvanachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuvanachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nissam Vs State of Kerala

Anuroop.K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ali Akbar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Vasavan Vs State of Kerala

Rahul R Vs State of Kerala

Ushakumari Vs State of Kerala