Allowed

Udyan T.N v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3474/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the accused in a POCSO case involving alleged kissing of a 15-year-old victim. The judgment finds suspicious elements in the complaint and subsequent FIR, noting the victim's father had previously declined prosecution. Bak was released on a bond with conditions to report periodically and stay away from the victim's residence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two sureties for Rs. 30,000 each, subject to conditions of reporting to the police and not leaving Palarivattom or entering the victim's house.

Udyan T.N 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 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3474 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 528/2016 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

UDYAN T.N, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN, THANKAPPILLY HOUSE, PONNURUNNI.P.O, VYTTILA, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.H.O.PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA. R.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P. UBAID, J.

B.A.No.3474 of 2016

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest in Crime No.528/2016 of the Palarivattom Police Station, registered under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The victim of offence is a girl aged 15 years. The allegation as against the petitioner is that at about 5 pm on 03.04.2016 he caught on the victim girl and kissed on her hand. The police registered the crime on the basis of a report of the Sub Inspector of Women Cell, Kochi City. She made such a report on the basis of the statement given by the victim on 08.04.2016. The incident allegedly happened on 03.04.2016. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is something suspicious regarding the present complaint. On a perusal of the case diary, I find that another complaint was made by the victim's father on 04.04.2016 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Palarivattom. This complaint is mentioned in the statement given by the victim. What is alleged in the complaint dated 04.04.2016 is also the

¶20

¶21

B.A.No.3474 of 2016

¶22

incident alleged in the FIR. Curiously enough the victim's father did not in fact want any legal action on his complaint. The complaint dated 04.04.2016 was not probably brought to the notice of the Court of Session. Had it been brought to the notice of the Court, I think, the learned Sessions Judge would have allowed the application for pre-arrest bail. The request of the father of the victim in the complaint dated 04.04.2016 is only to warn the petitioner, considering his old age. He did not make any request for prosecution or other action. But, it appears, without the knowledge of the said complaint a statement happened to be recorded on 08.04.2016 on the intervention of somebody. It is here, the complaint that led to the FIR becomes suspicious. In the above circumstances, I feel it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶23

In the result, this bail application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.30,0000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the Special Court having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.528/2016 of the Palarivattom Police Station. Bail is

¶24

¶25

B.A.No.3474 of 2016

¶26

granted on condition that the petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on all Saturdays

¶27

for a period of two months, he shall not leave the limits of Palarivattom Police Station for a period of two months, and he shall not enter the house or homestead of the victim of offence

¶28

during the said period.

Sd/-

P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

Udyan T.N v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udyan T.N 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

Biju S/O.Nanappan Vs State of Kerala

V.S.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Vijesh M.P Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sasidharan Vs Station House Officer

Basheer Vs the State of Kerala

Eldhose K.G Vs State of Kerala