Dismissed

Athira v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2018Bail Appl./5966/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail. The court found considerable merit in the prosecution's submissions regarding the petitioner's alleged complicity in procuring a minor for sexual assault and refused bail due to the nature of the offenses and the role assigned to the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed.

Athira Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5966 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 403/2018 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED:

¶8

ATHIRA, AGED 24, W/O.ANOOP, ANIKKAL HOUSE, KODAKARA DESOM, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.403 of

¶17

2018 of the Mala Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, she faces

¶18

accusations for having committed offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

¶19

Bail Appl..No. 5966 of 2018

¶20

¶21

and Section 3(a) read with Sections 4, 7, 8, 9(1)(p), 10, 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶22

The father of a minor child, who was subjected to gross sexual abuse, is the de facto complainant in the above Crime. The child was found missing on 11.7.2018 and while the family members were frantically searching for the child, she appeared in the evening with the 1^st accused. When questioned, she stated that she had gone with the 1^st accused, who is a man aged about 22 years. She further stated that, on 08.07.2018, the applicant called the class teacher of the child from a mobile phone bearing No.'8943150896' and introduced herself as the mother of the child. The teacher was told that the child would not be attending classes on 9.7.2018 as she is sick. The child was then asked to come to the Mala Bus stand.

¶23

The applicant and the 1^st accused went to the bus stand in a car, picked up the child and she was taken to Angamaly. While she was in the car, the 1^st accused is alleged to have kissed her. The child was then taken to Chalakkudy, where the applicant got down. She was then taken to an isolated house and the 1^st accused is alleged to have subjected her to penetrative sexual intercourse. On 11.07.2018 when the child did not attend the class, the class

¶24

Bail Appl..No. 5966 of 2018

¶25

¶26

teacher called up the mother of the child and enquired. The parents immediately went to the school and enquired with the teacher. It was then that they realized about the earlier call made by the applicant. The 1^st accused was arrested and he remains in custody.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the applicant herein is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the applicant was not aware of the acts of the 1^st accused. As requested by the 1^st accused, the applicant had handed over her mobile phone with which, the 1^st accused might have called the teacher. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the applicant was also in the car when the child was picked up from the Mala bus stand would not show that the applicant was acting with prior concert.

¶28

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation conducted till date has revealed the complicity of the applicant. It is submitted that the child was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and this fact is evident from the medical examination report. The applicant herein had a very major role to play in the procuration of the minor girl and

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 5966 of 2018

¶30

¶31

the investigation conducted has revealed that she had induced the girl knowing fully well that the minor child would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse by the 1^st accused.

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. On going through the case diary, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the allegations against the applicant are frivolous. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the age of the child who was abused, the role assigned to the applicant, the materials in support thereof and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to an order of anticipatory bail.

¶33

This application will stand dismissed.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶36

DSV/23/10/18

¶37

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

Athira v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athira 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

Ashin Vs State of Kerala

Adarsh Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu @ Kunjunni, Vs State of Kerala

Pulilandy P Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs the State of Kerala

Bipin Vs State of Kerala