Allowed

Martin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5055/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed pre-arrest bail to the accused under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving charges of molestation and offences under the POSCO Act, holding that investigation was practically complete and further detention was not necessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond with two sureties of ₹40,000 each; granted conditions regarding reporting schedule, restricted movement, non-interference with witnesses, and prohibition from enter

Martin 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

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/25TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5055 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 139/2016 OF PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MARTIN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O SUSEELAN, BATHEL ESTATE, KOZHIKANAM, PEERUMEDU TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RAJESH, SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.5055 of 2016

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Dated this the 16^th August, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.139 of 2016 of the Peerumedu Police Station registered under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 11 (vi) read with 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. He is the sole accused in the crime.

¶22

The victim of offence in this case is a girl aged 13 years. The prosecution case is that, at about 3 p.m on 20.03.2016 the petitioner, at his residence made an attempt to molest the girl with sexual intent. Of course, there is nothing to show that the girl was in fact sexually abused by the petitioner. However, an offence as defined under Section 7 of the POSCO Act, is made out by the complaint.

¶23

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by

¶24

B.A No.5055 of 2016

¶25

¶26

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 definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶27

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. The investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. The police 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.

¶28

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

¶29

B.A No.5055 of 2016

¶30

¶31

his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 40,000/-₹ (Fourty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate or the learned Special Judge having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.139 of 2016 of the Peerumedu Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶32

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Mondays for period of two months.

¶33

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of the Peerumedu Police Station for a period of two months.

¶34

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

¶35

d) The petitioner shall not enter the revenue village where the house of the victim of offence is situated till trial of the case is over, unless otherwise permitted by the trial court in due course of trial for sufficient reasons.

¶36

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶37

¶38

/True copy/ P.S to Judge

Martin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martin 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

Thomas Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Sukesh Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf O.P. Vs State of Kerala

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Padmavathi Amma Vs State of Kerala

Sandhya Jayan Vs State of Kerala