Allowed

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2013Bail Appl./6097/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted bail to two accused charged with rape, sexual assault, and offences under POCSO and IT Act against a minor, imposing six specific conditions including reporting, non-contact with victim, and restrictions on leaving Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to execution of bond with sureties, reporting to IO, no contact with victim, no leaving Kerala, and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Anilkumar 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/17TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6097 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1385/2013 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 & 2 :

¶8

1. ANILKUMAR, S/O.ASOKAN, AGED 24 YEARS EDATHARA VEEDU, P.O.MANNUTHY

¶9

2. ARUNGHOSH, S/O.GIRIDHAR, AGED 24 YEARS

¶10

MANAKKALATH, P.O.MANNUTHY.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶12

SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶13

RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT :

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No. 6097 of 2013

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2013.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.

¶25

1385 of 2013 of Mannuthy Police Station, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 450. 376, 366A and 354 of Indian Penal Code, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act and Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶26

The allegation against the petitioners is that

¶27

while the victim was studying in the 9^th standard they committed rape on her, took nude photographs of the victim and using that they sexually assaulted her.

¶28

The petitioners would say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. According to the petitioners, they have been in custody from 5.8.2013, and their continued custody is unnecessary.

¶29

B.A.6097/2013.

¶30

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition

¶32

and pointed out that accused No.6 is yet to be arrested and investigation is going on. Considering the gravity of the offences, it is pointed out that bail may not be granted to the petitioners.

¶33

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent cannot countenanced. There are materials to show their involvement. A deep probe into veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. It is no doubt true that the offences attributed to the petitioners are very serious in which they have committed sexual assault on a minor girl. Not only they have committed sexual assault, but they used her nude photographs to threaten her. But the fact remains that the petitioners have been in custody from 5.8.2013 and a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since no apprehension is expressed by the

¶34

B.A.6097/2013.

¶35

¶36

investigating agency that the petitioners are likely to abscond if released on bail, their continued custody appears to be unnecessary.

¶37

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶38

i) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶39

ii) The court concerned 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.

¶40

iii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. until further orders.

¶41

iv) Petitioners shall not try to contact the victim either directly or indirectly.

¶42

B.A.6097/2013.

¶43

¶44

v) Petitioners shall not leave State of Kerala without the prior permission of the court concerned.

¶45

vi) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶46

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

¶47

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶48

sb.

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar 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

Prasanna.S Vs State of Kerala

Shamseera Vs State of Kerala

Motan Vs State of Kerala

Noushad.T.P. Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan.P.v. Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Vs the State of Kerala