Allowed

Geevarghese.M.D v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2017Bail Appl./1050/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused fathers charged with rape and POCSO offences against their ten-year-old twin daughters. The court noted the custody dispute and contradictions in testimony, including the second daughter's denial of harm against her father.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail after interrogation, execution of bond for Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties, surrender of passports, and conditions to avoid other criminal cases, intimidation, and tampering w

Geevarghese.M.D Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/14TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1050 of 2017 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 2116/2016 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 :

¶8

1. GEEVARGHESE.M.D., S/O.M.D.DANIEL, 56 YEARS, MUNDAKKA MANNIL, PARANTHAL P.O., PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SURESH KUMAR K., S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS, JAYALAKSHMI VILASAM, PANDALAM P.O., KURAMPALA VILLAGE, KURAMPALA MURI, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.SIVA KUMAR SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. (CRIME NO.2116 OF 2016 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION)

¶13

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶18

B.A.No.1050 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.2116 of 2016 of Pandalam Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The first petitioner is the father of two ten year old girls, who are twins. It is alleged that the second petitioner sexually assaulted one of the girls and the first petitioner helped him to do it.

¶23

The learned counsel submits that the allegation is false.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The first informant is one of the twin daughters of the first petitioner. She is aged 10 years. The learned Magistrate recorded statements of both daughters under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The twin sister of the first informant stated to the Magistrate that the first petitioner did not do anything harmful to her and she has no complaint against the first petitioner. This is in spite of the fact

¶26

B.A.No.1050 of 2017

¶27

¶28

that she is also residing with the mother, who is living separately from the first petitioner.

¶29

I have perused the F.I.Statement and the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There are some variations between the statements. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the first petitioner and his wife with regard to the custody of the children. The learned counsel submits that it is this estrangement that resulted in the filing of this false case. There are some very suspicious circumstances in the case. Having regard to the facts of the case, especially the statement of the twin sister of the first informant, I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioners.

¶30

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶31

i. The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Investigating Officer in connection with this case.

¶32

ii. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on

¶33

7th and 14th days of their release.

¶34

B.A.No.1050 of 2017

¶35

¶36

iii. They shall surrender their passports before the

¶37

lower court concerned or if they do not have one they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release.

¶38

iv. They shall not get themselves involved in any other criminal case while they are on bail.

¶39

v. They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the

¶40

witnesses.

¶41

vi. They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶42

vii. They shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶43

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶44

learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶47

¶48

/True copy/

¶49

P.A. to Judge

Geevarghese.M.D v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geevarghese.M.D 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

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed Vs the S.I. of Police

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Febin Lal R.K Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dennis Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Joseph P.J Vs State of Kerala