Allowed

Raj Mon @ Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jul 2016Bail Appl./2007/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted pre-arrest bail to accused Raj Mon in POCSO case (Sections 354A, 11 read with 12) where investigation deemed practically over. Bail ordered with bond and specific conditions including restricting movement from village and reporting,

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond with two sureties (40,000 each); Directed to report B.I.O. weekly; Restricted to Mararikkulam police limits; Prohibited from contacting or influencing witnesses; Barre

Raj Mon @ Raju Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2007 of 2016 () ------------------------------CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN -----------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED

¶7

RAJ MON @ RAJU AGED,39 S/O.DASAN, THAREVELI, KANJIKKUZHY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.MAHENDRANATH

¶9

SRI.R.SYLESHWAREN NAIR SMT.M.VISHNUPRIYA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031.

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARRARIKKULAM POLICE STATION, KANJIKKUZHY, ALAPPUZHA-688001.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT LALIZA.T.Y.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.V.

¶19

P.UBAID, J.

¶20

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

¶21

B.A.No.2007 of 2016

¶22

============================ Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2016

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under

¶25

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.241 of 2016 Mararikkulam Police Station, registered under Sections 354A (3) and 11(iii) read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act. He is the sole accused.

¶26

The victim of offence in this case is a small

¶27

girl aged 10 years. The petitioner herein is her next door neighbour. The prosecution case is that on 01.01.2016, the petitioner herein showed some nude photographs to the child. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded during investigation. The complaint in this case was made by the mother of the victim. The statement given by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not contain the exact nature or the extent of the alleged nakedness in photographs. It appears that the petitioner has some psychic

¶28

B.A.No.2007 of 2016 2

¶29

problems. He has produced some medical documents showing that he had been under treatment for such complaints. In the above circumstances, I feel it not appropriate to detain him in custody for the purpose of investigation.

¶30

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶31

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the Investigating Officer, I find that investigation in the crime is practically over, and that the petitioner can be granted pre arrest bail. I find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. I find that the police

¶32

B.A.No.2007 of 2016 3

¶33

has gone a long way with investigation, and has already collected necessary materials. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶34

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 40,000/-₹ (Rupees Forty Thousand only)each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.241 of 2016 Mararikkulam Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶35

a) The petitioner shall report before the

¶36

investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

¶37

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of the Mararikkulam Police Station for a period

¶38

B.A.No.2007 of 2016 4

¶39

of two months.

¶40

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶41

d) The petitioners shall not enter the Revenue Village where the house of the victim is situated, during the said period of two months.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Raj Mon @ Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Mon @ Raju 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

Mustakim Muhammed Vs S.I of Police

C.K.Shobhana Vs State Ofkerala

Sarath C.P. Vs the Station House Officer, Kalamassery

K.V. Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala

Shahazad M. Vs State of Kerala

Jopson Vs State of Kerala