Dismissed

Bahuleyan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Mar 2019Bail Appl./2043/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, while exercising powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C., refused to release the petitioner, an accused in a POCSO case, on bail at this stage due to grave allegations and the imminent trial. The court directed that the bail application be considered by the Special Judge after recording evidence of main witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; bail considered by Special Judge after evidence of main witnesses is recorded.

Bahuleyan, 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2043 of 2019

¶6

SC NO.639/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BAHULEYAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LATE APPUKUTTAN, 2/571, THARATTAYIL PUTHENVEEDU, EDAKODE, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA:2043/2019

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

The applicant herein is a Police Officer. He stands arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.439 of the Peroorkada Police Station. The case is now pending as S.C. No.639 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram. He faces indictment for having committed offences under Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 r/w. Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner committed

¶20

gross sexual abuse on a minor child studying in the III standard.

¶21

The earlier applications filed by the applicant were dismissed by this Court by detailed orders, the copies of which are produced as Annexures-A and B. This Court after evaluation of the case diary had concluded that the allegations are extremely grave and the petitioner herein, who was under duty and placed in a position of trust, had betrayed the same by abusing the minor child. This Court had also taken note of the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the

¶22

BA:2043/2019

¶23

¶24

petitioner would terrorize and influence the prosecution witnesses by abusing his position and would tamper with the evidence. As the petitioner was an under trial prisoner, a report was called for, and later the case was ordered to be disposed of within a period of three months. He then approached the Court of Session and his application was dismissed by Annexure-C order.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the application holding that the petitioner and the victim are staying in the near vicinity. It is submitted that the petitioner has obtained alternate residence elsewhere and the apprehension no longer holds true. He submitted that the petitioner has been undergoing incarceration from 1.3.2018 and prays for intervention.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that there are no change of circumstances and no interference is warranted.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced. I have no

¶28

doubt in my mind that the allegations against the petitioner are extremely grave. Furthermore, the trial is scheduled to commence

¶29

BA:2043/2019

¶30

¶31

from 4.4.2019. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to release him on bail at this stage.

¶32

The learned counsel finally submitted that his application for

¶33

bail be ordered to be considered after the evidence of the main witnesses are recorded. Having considered the submissions, after the evidence of the main witnesses are recorded, the applicant may move the learned Special Judge, who, having regard to the evidence adduced till then, shall consider his application and pass appropriate orders.

¶34

This application is dismissed.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶37

// TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE

¶38

KRJ

Bahuleyan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahuleyan, 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

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Arshad @ Arshad, Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

K.R. Sureshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Raju @ Tahir Vs the State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala