Allowed

Peter Rosalain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2017Bail Appl./7352/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted bail under Section 438 CrPC to a 75-year-old accused charged with offending a child under IPC 354A and POCSO 12. The court held that custodial interrogation could be waived due to the petitioner's advanced age, granting bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowed. Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions avoiding arrest, no inducement, availability for interrogation, and non-re-

Peter Rosalain 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/15TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7352 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1952/2017 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION , KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

PETER ROSALAIN,

¶9

AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. ABEL, CHRISTU BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD, THANGASSERI P.O., KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

------------------------------------------------

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA M.N

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶18

B.A No.7352 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1952/2017 of Kollam West Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Section 354A (1) (i) of the IPC and Section II(1) read with 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012.

¶23

The petitioner herein is a septuagenarian. He is residing in a colony where the near relatives of the minor child are also residing. On 01.10.2017 at 11.30 a.m. minor child had come to visit her aunts house. The petitioner was standing at the entrance of the house. When he identified the child he held her close and is alleged to have told her that she had become a big

¶24

girl. She went back to her house and late in the evening is

¶25

alleged to have disclosed the above incident to her parents. On

¶26

B.A No.7352 of 2017 2

¶27

the next day, the father of the child gave a statement before the police based on which the crime was registered. According to the prosecution, the physical contact made by the petitioner on the minor child had unwelcome sexual overtures.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to Annexure-A1 statement furnished by the child on 02.10.2017 to the Sub Inspector of Polce, Kollam West would submit that a minor incident was blown beyond proportion. In the said statement, the victim child in unmistakable terms have stated that her grandfather had held her close only due to affection towards her and nothing else. She has stated that she has no further complaints .

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor, however, would

¶30

strongly oppose the submission and state that later the parents have again approached the police and had given a different version. I take note of the fact that the only allegation is that the petitioner, who is aged almost 80 years had held the child

¶31

close to her. The victim is a student of the IX standard.

¶32

B.A No.7352 of 2017

¶33

¶34

Having regard to all the relevant facts and taking note of the age of the petitioner, the nature and gravity of the allegations, Annexure-A1 statement of the child and the antecedents of the petitioner, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner can be done away with in the instant case.

¶35

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i). It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner/accused in connection with the Crime No.1952/2017 of the Kollam West police station, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for 25,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest.

¶37

ii). The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶38

iii). The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating officer and for all investigative purposes whenever required.

¶39

B.A No.7352 of 2017

¶40

¶41

iv).The applicant shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶42

v) If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶43

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶44

This application is allowed as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE //TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶48

Peter Rosalain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peter Rosalain 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

Salman V.A. Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Harikrishnan A.N Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh.a Vs Excise Range Officer