Allowed

James Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1402/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under POCSO for alleged sexual assault on an 11-year-old daughter, the Single Judge allowed bail noting the availability of a statement disputing the charge and lack of medical records supporting the assault. Continuing custody was deemed unnecessary as no absconding apprehension existed.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to execution of bond with sureties, weekly reporting, and prohibitions on meeting the victim or leaving Kerala.

James Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/10TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1402 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 110/2013 OF KEEZHUVAIPUR POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

JAMES VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE VARGHESE, THAYYIL VEEDU, CHEENKATHADAM, MALAYALAPPUZHA THAZHAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT (NOW RESIDING AT MUKKADAMANNIL VEEDU, KULATHUNKAL KAVALA, PUNNAVELI MURI, ANIKKADU VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA)

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESH KUMAR SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A. No. 1402 of 2013

¶17

¶18

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2013.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 110 of 2013 of Keezhuvaipur Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed sexual assault on his daughter, who is 11 years, on 28.1.2013 and several days prior to that date. It seems that the abnormal behaviour of the girl was noticed by one of the teachers in the school and the child was asked about the reason. Then she said what her father had done to her. The school authorities informed the matter to the Child Welfare Committee and the Committee sent a complaint to the police, based on which the crime was registered.

¶22

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He denied having

¶23

B.A.1402/2013.

¶24

¶25

committed any act which would constitute an offence and would say that he is innocent. Further, it is stated by him that he has been in custody from 2.2.2013 and his continued custody is not necessary.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition by pointing out that the if the allegations are true, the matter is indeed serious and grave and the petitioner deserves no leniency. It is also pointed out that the investigation is not yet complete.

¶27

CD was made available for perusal. The CD contains the statement of the mother of the victim. In her statement, she disputes the father of the victim having committed any sexual assault on her daughter and says that the petitioner is a loving father. The medical records seen in the CD also do not support the claim of sexual assault as of now. Whatever that be, the petitioner has been in custody from 2.2.2013 onwards. A good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since no

¶28

B.A.1402/2013.

¶29

¶30

apprehension is expressed by the prosecution that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, his continued custody appears to be unnecessary.

¶31

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶32

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

¶33

ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts that are sought to be produced at the time of executing the bond.

¶34

iii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. till final report is laid.

¶35

iv) Petitioner shall not attempt to meet the victim for a period of six months from today.

¶36

B.A.1402/2013.

¶37

¶38

v) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶39

vi) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the Magistrate concerned.

¶40

vii) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶41

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶42

sb.

James Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Varghese 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanoj Vs State of Kerala

Jagadamma Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Reveendran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Moideenkunhi.K.a. Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala