Allowed

Sajeev v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2013Bail Appl./6470/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter. Despite the grave nature of the allegations, the court found continued custody unnecessary after investigations progressed, imposing strict conditions including avoiding the victim and remaining in Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, subject to strict conditions including reporting weekly, avoiding victim, and remaining in Kerala.

Sajeev Vs the 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. 6470 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1183/2013 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶8

SAJEEV, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.ADIMA, VATTAKKATTUTHARA HOUSE EAST SIDE OF KUZHIPPILLY BRIDGE, KUZHIPPILLY KARA EDAVANAKKADU VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, VYPEEN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI. K.I. ABDUL RASHEED

¶13

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. 6470 of 2013

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 9th day of October, 2013.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner stands accused of having sexually violated his own daughter who was aged only 11 years at the relevant time. He stands accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code

¶22

and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶23

The allegation against the petitioner is that he

¶24

has been repeatedly subjecting his minor daughter to sexual assault and that the child had developed mental problems. Ultimately the matter was revealed and crime was registered.

¶25

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and

¶26

has been falsely implicated. According to him, as a result of the sexual assault by a stranger long ago, the child was suffering from psychological problems and she is under

¶27

B.A.6470/2013.

¶28

¶29

delusive feeling. The petitioner claims that he had not committed any act which would constitute an offence and due to the delusive feeling of the victim that he has been unnecessarily implicated in the case. It is also pointed out that his wife had filed a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police stating the true state of affairs and that shows that he is innocent. It is pointed out that at any rate, he has been in custody from 30.7.2013 and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶30

Learned Additional Director General of

¶31

Prosecution very vehemently opposed the petition and contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave and that may be taken note of while considering this application. It is also contended that the child is independently housed and if the petitioner is released on bail, the petitioner may interfere with the further investigation and tamper with the evidence.

¶32

B.A.6470/2013.

¶33

¶34

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is totally innocent cannot be countenanced. If the allegations are true, the matter is indeed very serious and grave and it is a pity that the father should have acted so to his daughter. It is seen that the mother of the child is seen to have filed a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police stating that her husband is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The value that could be attached to the said statement at this stage is open to serious doubt. As rightly pointed out by the learned Addl.D.G.P., it may not be possible to accept the said statement as voluntary and true. The further claim of the petitioner that he has been implicated due to the delusive feeling of the victim also cannot be accepted. But the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody from 30.7.2013 and a good part of the investigation must have

¶35

B.A.6470/2013.

¶36

¶37

been completed by now. His continued custody appears to be unnecessary.

¶38

Therefore, this application is allowed on the

¶39

following conditions:

¶40

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 each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

B.A.6470/2013.

¶45

¶46

v) Petitioner shall not take away the victim from where she is lodged now.

¶47

vi) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of Njarakkal Police Station except for complying with condition No.(iii)

¶48

vii) Petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the court concerned.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶52

sb.

Sajeev v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev v. the 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

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan.P.v. Vs State of Kerala