The High Court denied pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case involving a 15-year-old victim, finding immediate release unsafe and directing the petitioner to surrender for interrogation.
Petitioner directed to surrender within seven days for interrogation; no immediate bail granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 2724 of 2016
CRIME NO. 910/2015 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
P.A CHERIYAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. AUGUSTIN, PUTHUVAL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU
SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER :
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 004, (NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA.R
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
P.UBAID, J.
============================ B.A.No.2724 of 2016
============================ Dated this the 16th day of June, 2016
ORDER
The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest in Crime No.910 of 2015 of the Punnapra Police Station, registered under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences (POCSO) Act. The victim of offence in this case is a boy aged 15 years. The complaint was made by his mother on 25.08.2015. The alleged incident of sexual assault happened on 23.08.2015. The complaint made by the victim's mother contains all the essentials of the offence defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. In the nature of
the allegations, I feel it inappropriate to release the petitioner immediately under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Such a course will be unsafe. I find that the petitioner will have to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation for the collection of some materials
B.A.No.2724 of 2016 2
concerning him, and the alleged incident. Without such interrogation, the investigation process cannot be completed.
In the result, this application for bail is disposed of as follows;
a) The petitioner will surrender before the investigating officer, if he so opts, between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.
b) After necessary interrogation, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction before 4 p.m. on the same day.
c) In case application for regular bail is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be judiciously considered and decided on the same day by the learned Magistrate.
P. UBAID, JUDGE
rkj
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case involving a minor victim?
Whether the nature of allegations makes immediate release unsafe?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P.A CHERIYAN
STATE OF KERALA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
