Allowed

K.Murukan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2014Bail Appl./880/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed with conditions. Petitioner accused under Sec.354A IPC and Sec.8 POCSO. Court directed surrender, probationary bail bond of Rs.25,000 with solvent sureties, regular interrogation, passport production, affidavit against tampering, and restriction from leaving Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on conditions including surrender, bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, regular interrogation, passport production, affidavit against tampering, and restriction from leaving Kerala.

K.Murukan 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 N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/1ST PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 880 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 31/2014 OF ARYANCODE POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.MURUKAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O.LATE KUTTAN, PUNNAKUNNU VEEDU, VATTAPARAMBU OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.SREEKANTAN

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-6832 031

¶12

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

das

¶15

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A. No. 880 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.31/2014 of Aryankode police station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against him are under Sec.354A IPC and Sec.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.

¶22

The victim girl is aged about 9 years. It is alleged

¶23

that on 14.01.2014 at about 11.30 AM the accused had physical contact with the victim girl by touching and pressing her private parts and also pressed her chest/breast. Accused actually caused pain to her by pressing her private parts.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the alleged place of incident is a junction where there are so many shop rooms, no such incident could have happened. It is further stated that this case was foisted at

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

B.A. No. 880/2014

¶27

the instance of one Vincent against whom a case was filed which is now pending before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara as C.C. 758/2009. The learned counsel further submits that it is easy to get a girl of tender age to make such a complaint to tarnish the reputation or to humiliate a respectable person of the locality.

¶28

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim girl was seen roaming around in the nearby plantation. She took away a polythene cover containing the shirt and dhothi of the petitioner and ran away with about 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only)₹ which was kept in the pocket of the shirt. Petitioner says that he chased and caught hold of her and got back the money. That has been now converted as a crime of this nature, it is contended.

¶29

From what could be gathered from the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the incident alleged by the prosecution is not altogether untrue, though

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

B.A. No. 880/2014

¶32

there may be slight embellishment or exaggeration.

¶33

Considering all the aspects the following directions are issued:

¶34

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven 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:

¶35

a. The accused shall execute a bond for ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five 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.

¶36

b. The accused shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further

B.A. No. 880/2014

-: 4 :-

orders.

c. The accused shall produce 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.

¶41

d. The accused will also file 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 evidence.

¶42

e. The accused shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court.

¶43

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

¶44

sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶45

das

¶46

// True copy //

¶47

PA to Judge

K.Murukan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Murukan 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

Muhammed Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Arun @ Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Murukamma Vs State of Kerala

Johny.G.M. Vs State of Kerala

Abu Vs State of Kerala