Allowed

Mahesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jul 2016Bail Appl./5539/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the regular bail application of the first accused in an alleged POCSO sexual harassment case. Finding investigation practically complete, the Court granted bail subject to conditions restricting movement and prohibiting witness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail with two sureties for Rs. 50,000 each, subject to reporting weekly, not leaving jurisdiction, avoiding victim's village, not intimidating witnesses, and not leaving district d

Mahesh 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

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5539 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 212/2016 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

APPLICANT/ ACCUSED NO 1:

¶8

MAHASH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O MANI, KOAMBARA, MANGODU, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/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 29-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

P.UBAID, J.

B.A.No.5539 of 2016

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No.212/2016 of the Alathur Police Station, registered under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by him for regular bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad on 13.07.2016. He has been in custody since 01.06.2016.

¶21

The prosecution case is that between 1.30 pm and 5 pm on a day in April, 2015, the petitioner herein sexually harassed the victim at his house after making her asleep by giving some small quantity of toddy. The victim is the petitioner's neighbour girl, who came at his house to view TV programmes on that day. It appears that the 2^nd accused was arraigned on the basis of the statement given by the victim that, on some previous occasions he had also made some sexual advancements to her. What is revealed by the case records is a case of sexual harassment as defined under

¶22

B.A.No.5539 of 2016 2

¶23

Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner has been in custody for two months.

¶24

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶25

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the

¶26

materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that investigation in this case is practically over, and that the petitioner can be now released on appropriate conditions. I find that the Investigating Officer has already questioned the material witnesses, and has collected the necessary materials for a prosecution. I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioner in custody. However, some reasonable conditions for bail are felt necessary in the particular facts and circumstances.

¶27

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioner will be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate or the learned Special Judge having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on

¶28

B.A.No.5539 of 2016 3

¶29

condition that;

¶30

a. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 am to 11 am on all Fridays for a period of two months.

¶31

b. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of Alathur Police Station for two months.

¶32

c. The petitioner shall not enter the revenue village

¶33

where the house of the victim is situated, till the whole investigation process is over.

¶34

d. 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

e. The petitioner shall not leave the Palakkad revenue district till trial of the case is over, unless otherwise permitted by the trial court in due course of trial for sufficient reasons.

Sd/P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

Mahesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh 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

Murali Menon Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Ranajith Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Chalakad Vs State of Kerala

M.C. Aboobaker Vs State of Kerala

C R Venugopalan Vs State of Kerala

Shamla Beevi Vs State of Kerala