Allowed

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6455/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the accused in a case of sexual intercourse with a minor under POCSO and IPC 376. The court held that after more than 50 days, continued detention was not warranted and granted bail subject to stringent conditions including passport surrender and witness interference prohibitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on 35,000 bond with two sureties subject to fortnightly reporting, passport surrender, and non-interference conditions.

Anoop Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6455 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1072/2014 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

ANOOP, S/O.SUNDARAN, AGED 23 YEARS AASHARI HOUSE, MINALOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, PIN-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MAJOORAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶16

===========================

¶17

B.A No. 6455 of 2014

¶18

============================

¶19

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1072/2014 of Wadakkanchery Police Station and as he is continuing custody from 25.07.2014 onwards, he preffered this application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

Prosecution allegation is that during the month of February 2014, the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with the minor daughter of the de facto complainant, aged 16 years, after having given her toddy and consequently, she became pregnant. Thus, according to the prosecution, the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

¶25

B.A No.6455/2014

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the daughter of the de facto complainant were in love and they used to have sexual intercourse. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the victim nor her parents made any complaint to the police and the present crime is registered, when the doctor, who examined the victim and reported the matter to the police, when she detected that the victim was pregnant. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the averments contained in the petition, that the petitioner is ready to marry the victim as soon as she attains marriageable age. It is also submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 25.07.2014 and the further detention of the petitioner is not required.

¶27

Whereas the Learned Public Prosecutor, resisting the relief sought for, submitted that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim after having given her toddy and therefore, the allegation against the petitioner is very serious.

¶28

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

¶30

B.A No.6455/2014

¶31

Though the alleged offence occurred during the month of February 2014, the above crime was registered only on 23.07.2014. Considering the above fact, at this stage, it cannot be said that claim of the petitioner is incorrect. Moreover, it is relevant to note that the petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2014 and thereafter more than 50 days are over. The custody of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation, if any, is already over by this time. So, according to me, the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted and he can be released on bail subject to stringent conditions.

¶32

In the result, this petition is allowed granting bail. Accordingly, there will be a direction to release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court on the following other conditions:

¶33

Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight on Sunday between 10 a.m and 11 a.m.

¶34

ii) Petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate, at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, he will file an affidavit to that effect in the High Court. If the petitioner requires his passport, he can

¶35

¶36

B.A No.6455/2014

¶37

approach the trial court for the release of the same and in case such an application is filed, the trial court is directed to consider the same on merit guided by the decision reported in Ashok Kumar v State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).

¶38

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses.

¶39

iv) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶42

vdv

¶43

The words “in the High Court” occurring in the 5^th line of 2^nd condition at page 3 of the final order dated 16.09.2014 in B.A No.6455/2014 are corrected and substituted as “before the Jurisdictional

¶44

Magistrate”, vide order dated 19.09.2014 in B.A No.6455/2014.

¶45

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Clabin @ Vipin Vs State of Kerala

Beefathima Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Zakariya P. @ Jakki Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Firos Vs Sub Inspector of Police