Allowed

Manu S/O.Joseph v. State of Kerala, Rep.by Sub Inspector of Police, Upputhara Police Station

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014Bail Appl./1715/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused in an IPC 354 and POCSO Act case. The court directed surrender within ten days for interrogation and imposed conditions regarding bond, availability for investigation without prior leave, and surrendering passport.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions including surrender within ten days, execution of bond with sureties, availability for interrogation, surrender of passport, and adherence to standard bail cond

Manu S/O.Joseph Vs State of Kerala, Rep.by Sub… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1715 of 2014 (D)

¶6

CRIME NO. 65/2014 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

ACCUSED(S):

¶8

MANU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH NELLUVELIL HOUSE, KOZHIMALA KARA, AYAPPANCOIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOBY GEORGE

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COUR TOF KEARLA 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

JJJ

¶15

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

B.A. No. 1715 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2014

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.65/2014

¶20

of Upputhara Police Station, Idukki District. Offences alleged are under section 354 of IPC and section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶21

The allegation is that the accused outraged the

¶22

modesty of the daughter of the complainant, who is aged below 18 years.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain letters stated to have been sent by the complainant's daughter. A perusal of the those letters would show that the girl was after the boy (accused) and that since the accused did not yield to the demand made by the complainant's daughter, this complaint has been filed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits.

¶24

B.A. No. 1715/2014 (D)

¶25

-2-

¶26

Considering all the aspects the following directions

¶27

are issued:

¶28

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate will, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioner but on the following conditions:

¶29

a. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶30

B.A. No. 1715/2014 (D)

¶31

-3-

¶32

b. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶33

c. The petitioner shall surrender his original passport before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶34

d. The petitioner will also file an affidavit that he will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that he will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the

¶35

B.A. No. 1715/2014 (D)

¶36

-4-

¶37

evidence.

¶38

e. The petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶39

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶40

Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

P.A. to Judge

¶43

jjj

Manu S/O.Joseph v. State of Kerala, Rep.by Sub Inspector of Police, Upputhara Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu S/O.Joseph v. State of Kerala, Rep.by Sub Inspector of Police, Upputhara Police Station

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

Noufal Mon Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Binod Vs State of Kerala

Suma Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Nishad @ Saiman Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shan Vs the State of Kerala