Allowed

Dileep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2018Bail Appl./612/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under u/s 438 CrPC in a case involving sexual assault on a juvenile. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and imposed specific conditions to ensure fair investigation and prevent tampering.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including periodic reporting to the investigating officer and surrendering passport.

Dileep 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 R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 612 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.1869/2017 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

DILEEP, AGE 45, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, KRISHNA VILASOM, NEAR BHAVANI JUNCTION, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶10

RESPONDENT)/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2018, THE COURT ON 21-02-2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶15

¶16

B.A.No.612 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.1869/2017 of the Kallambalam police station under Sections 323 and 506(i) I.P.C and under Section 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶21

The prosecution case is that on 20.12.2017, at about 07.30 hours, at a public place, the petitioner touched and caught hold of the private parts of the de facto complainant, a boy aged 13 years and when the de facto complainant tried to escape, the petitioner beat him and threatened him.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

¶23

B.A.No.612/2018

¶24

¶25

The offence punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is alleged against the petitioner. Section 75 of the Act provides that whoever, having the actual charge of or control over a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child, or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed, or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child being subjected to unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. Thus, for a prosecution under Section 75 of the Act, 2015, abandonment or abuse or exposure or neglect of a child or a juvenile must have been committed by a person having actual charge of or control over the child.

¶26

In the instant case, there is no material to find that the victim boy was under the control or charge of the petitioner at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, it is doubtful whether Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is attracted.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

¶28

B.A.No.612/2018

¶29

¶30

case against the petitioner has been registered as a counter blast to the case which is registered against the father of the de facto complainant. It is seen from the materials produced by the petitioner that Crime No.1863/2017 of Kallambalam police station has been registered against the father of the victim and another person under Sections 354, 451, 323 and 294(b) read with 34 I.P.C. This case was registered on the basis of the statement given to the police by the petitioner against the father of the victim at 17.25 hours on 21.12.2017. The incident in that case has allegedly occurred at 08.10 hours on 20.12.2017. The case against the petitioner has been registered on the basis of the statement given to the police by the victim at 12.55 hours on 22.12.2017. The incident in the case registered against the petitioner has allegedly occurred at 07.30 hours on 20.12.2017. Merely because there was delay in giving information to the police regarding the incident in this case and the case against the petitioner is registered only subsequent to the case registered against the father of the victim, it cannot be found at this stage, that the case against the petitioner is false. It is to be noted that

¶31

in cases of sexual assault, especially on children, delay in

¶32

B.A.No.612/2018

¶33

¶34

reporting the matter to the police is natural. It is to be noted that in the first information statement given to the police and in

¶35

the statement recorded by the Magistrate concerned under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the victim has narrated the incident clearly implicating the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be found at this stage that the case against the petitioner is false.

¶36

However, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. The prosecution has no apprehension that on getting bail, the petitioner would abscond. Considering these aspects, I find that the discretion of the Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant him pre-arrest bail on imposing proper conditions to ensure fair and free investigation.

¶37

In the result, the application is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

¶38

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No. 1869/2017 of Kallambalam police station.

¶39

B.A.No.612/2018

¶40

¶41

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 9 a.m and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of

¶42

three months from the date of his release on bail.

¶43

iii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence in the case.

¶44

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶45

v) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating

¶46

officer as and when directed in writing to do so.

¶47

vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport in the Magistrate's Court concerned within three days from the date of

¶48

his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the Magistrate's Court concerned within that period.

¶49

(sd/-)

¶50

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶51

jsr

Dileep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep 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

Ansu Vs the State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Arun @Achu Vs State of Kerala

Faleel v. Vs Sho, Kannur Town Police Station

Thomas @ Tomy Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kalam Vs State of Kerala