Allowed

Liju, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Apr 2019Bail Appl./124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of offences under IPC 354, PoCSO Act 8, and JJ Act 75. The court held that custodial interrogation was not essential and allowed bail with conditions to cooperate with investigation and appear for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on bond of Rs. 75,000 with two sureties; released after interrogation; conditions to cooperate with investigation, appear for interrogation, report weekly, and not influence wi

Liju, Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 124 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 1641/2018 OF Enathu Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

LIJU, AGED 21 YEARS

¶9

S/O RAJU, THENGAMOM MURI, THENGAMAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-691523.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA-691523.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 124 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Apprehending his arrest, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sec.354 of IPC, Sec.8 of the PoCSO Act and Sec.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act ( JJ Act for short). The police of Enathu police station in Pathanamthitta district has registered a case as crime no.1641/2018 against the petitioner.

¶21

Prosecution case goes as follows: It all happened at around 1 p.m on 21.12.2018. The victim girl aged 16 years was returning from her school along with her friends. When they reached Karimpara junction, the petitioner who came on a scooter abused the girl. He caught her hand. When she objected, he slapped on her face twice.

¶22

Heard Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned senior public prosecutor.

¶23

It seems that Sec.75 of the JJ Act is out of question. Sec.75 provides punishment for cruelty to child. In order to attract Sec.75, the offender must be a person who is in actual charge of or control over the victim child. The prosecution has no such case.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that catching the hand or slapping on the face do not attract the penal provisions in Sec.354 of IPC. It is also alleged that Sec.8 of the PoCSO Act is not attracted inasmuch as the acts alleged against the

¶25

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 124 of 2019

¶27

petitioner do not fall within the ambit of the definition of sexual assault contained in Sec.7 of the PoCSO Act. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he touched any parts of the body of the girl specifically referred to in Sec.7. It is also his submission that catching the hand and slapping on the face cannot be termed as an act with sexual intent.

¶28

It is too premature to have a positive or negative finding on the arguments of the learned counsel. But his arguments cannot be totally ignored or brushed aside. I do not consider the present case to be one where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is an absolute must for an effective investigation of the case. Considering all these matters, I am inclined to grant him bail.

¶29

The application is allowed. If arrested in connection with crime no.1641/2018 of Enathu police station, the petitioner shall be released on bail, after interrogation, on his executing a bond for Rs 75,000/- (seventy five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. He shall make himself available for interrogation if so required by the investigating officer. He shall report to the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on every Saturday for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall not intimidate or try to influence witnesses. He shall not destroy or tamper with evidence. The court having jurisdiction is hereby

¶30

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 124 of 2019

¶32

empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law if any of the conditions mentioned above is violated. If the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned, this order will cease to have effect and the said court will pass appropriate orders as if this order has not been passed.

¶33

A.M.BABU

¶34

03/04/19

¶35

JUDGE

Liju, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liju, 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

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Subhash, Vs State of Kerala

Ganesan, Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudheen, Vs State of Kerala

Arun Vs State of Kerala