Allowed

Johny P.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2018Bail Appl./5473/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding an allegation of sexual assault on a 13-year-old child under the POCSO Act, the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail, observing that custodial interrogation was not immediately necessary.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; applicant to appear for interrogation within ten days or on Saturdays for two months; bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Johny P.R. Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 28TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5473 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.1145/2018 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOHNY P.R., AGED 55 YEARS, PALLATH HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHAMBALAM EAST, MALIPPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.EBIN MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V. SREEJA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA:5473/18

ORDER

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

¶19

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.1145 of

¶20

2018 registered at the Njarakkal Police Station, under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶21

On 27.7.2018, at about 4.30 p.m., while the de facto

¶22

complainant, a girl aged 13 years, and her younger sister were returning back from school, they had occasion to meet the applicant and his wife. While the wife of the applicant was talking to another lady, the children went along with the applicant to his house to play with his pet dog. It is alleged that when they entered the compound of the house of the applicant, he touched the shoulder of the elder child and tried to insert his hands inside her school uniform. She pushed off his hands and left the house. Stating these allegations, information was lodged and a Crime was registered.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted

¶24

that the applicant is innocent of the allegations. It is submitted that the de facto complainant is his immediate neighbour and she along with her sister had come to the house of the applicant to play with his pet dog. The dog somehow managed to come out of the kennel

¶25

BA:5473/18

¶26

¶27

and came running towards the children. The applicant in order to save the child from being harmed, had caught hold of her shoulder and had pulled her towards the side. His wife was also standing nearby witnessing the events. The allegation that the applicant had touched the child with sexual intent is clearly without basis, contends the learned counsel. It is urged that the stringent provisions of the act is being abused by the police. The learned counsel would further submit that though the alleged incident had taken place on 27.7.2018, the law was set in motion only on 3.8.2018.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the 164 statement of the child. In the 164 statement, all that the child had stated is that the applicant herein had touched the child on her shoulders. In that view of the matter, it is doubtful whether the act of the applicant would amount to sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the narration of events in the 164 statement of the survivor, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary in the instant case.

¶30

BA:5473/18

¶31

¶32

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above

¶33

order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶35

ii) He 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. He shall not contact the victim or her family members.

¶36

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶37

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.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶41

KRJ

Johny P.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny P.R. 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

Dibin Vs State of Kerala

Maharoof M @ Mangadan Vs the State of Kerala

Khadeeja Vs the State of Kerala

Rosemary.T.S Vs State of Kerala

Sachin K.J. Vs State of Kerala

Senthil Kumar @ Robin Vs the State of Kerala