Allowed

Shafaf P.K., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Aug 2019Bail Appl./2534/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the Kerala High Court considered the grant of bail in a POCSO case involving alleged sexual intercourse with a minor. Considering the lapse of time and the victim's change of stance, the court noted custodial interrogation was unnecessary and allowed bail on attachment of bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted release on bail upon arrest, subject to a bond of Rs.40,000 and two solvent sureties, and various conditions including non-influence of witnesses and no approach to the victim's residence.

Shafaf P.K., 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl.No.2534 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.855/2014 OF Hosdurg Police Station , Kasargod

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAFAF P.K., AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, MA MANZIL, KALICHANADUKKAM P.O., HOSDURG, KASARGOD.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.855/2014 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT).

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671121. (CRIME NO.855/2014 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A. No. 2534 of 2019

¶15

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

B.A. No. 2534 of 2019

¶18

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No. 855/2014 of Hosdrug Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.366, 376 of IPC and Secs. 5 (1) and (6) of the POCSO Act, on the basis of the F.I.Statement given by the minor victim girl, then aged 17 years, on 02.08.2014 in respect of the allegations happened for the period from June, 2014 to July, 2014.

¶21

The prosecution case, in short, is that the

¶22

petitioner/accused now aged 23 years, was having an affair with the victim gir,l who is then a minor, aged 17 years, and that he had assured that he would marry her and that on a day in June 2014, he taken her in his car to a lodge in Mangalapuram, where he had sexual intercourse with her and later he had again taken her to a lodge in Mangalapuram on 30.07.2014 at about 8.00 a.m where he had sexual intercourse with her and that later she found that the petitioner has abandoned her and then she felt cheated and then she submitted the

¶23

B.A. No. 2534 of 2019

¶24

¶25

instant complaint. After the above said incident on 30.07.2014 she could reach her home only very late and then the parents questioned her she had to disclose the above said incidents and that her parents came to know about her intimate relationship with the petitioner/accused and that later petitioner was behaving indifferent to her and she gave the above said FIS to Police on 02.08.2014, which led to the registration of the instant crime. It appears that the victim has attained the age of majority some time ago and she is now aged 21 years and she has now sworn to Annexure I affidavit dated 09.11.2017, in Cr.MC No. 1835/2018 filed by the petitioner herein before this Court in which she has stated that the above said allegations submitted by her were out of her misunderstandings and that she has no further complaint against the petitioner and that he has no objections in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner etc in relation to the above said crime.

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner would point out that even the Police authorities were fully aware that the defacto complainant was not interested to prosecute the matter any further and that they have not questioned the petitioner so far even though the crime has been registered about five years back and that the custodial interrogation

¶27

B.A. No. 2534 of 2019

¶28

¶29

of the petitioner is not necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail submitted that there is a possibility of the petitioner influencing and intimidating the witnesses including the lady defacto complainant etc.

¶30

After hearing both sides, and evaluating the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the long lapse of time five years up to the filing of the instant FIR on 02.08.2014 and also taking note of the stand of the lady victim in Annexure I affidavit, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not really be required for effectuating the smooth and fair investigation in this crime. Further, it is stated that the lady victim had already married another man, and that she is living her family life with husband, about which reference is made in Annexure I affidavit.

¶31

Accordingly, It is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested in connection with crime No.855/2014 of Hosdurg Police Station, then he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. However, in that eventuality,

¶32

B.A. No. 2534 of 2019

¶33

¶34

the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:

¶35

( i) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶38

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶39

(v) The petitioner shall not visit or go any where near to the residence of the lady victim and her husband, until the conclusion of the trial .

¶40

(vi) Petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station, where the lady victim and her husband are residing, until the conclusion of the trial except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer or attending to any court in relation to this case or any other cases or for contacting his lawyer or advocate concerned. If the petitioner has any emergent personal need to visit the said area, he may do so, but only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶41

If there is any violation of the above said conditions by the

¶42

petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby

¶43

B.A. No. 2534 of 2019

¶44

¶45

authorised, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail, if required, in accordance with law.

¶46

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

JUDGE

KAS

Shafaf P.K., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafaf P.K., 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

Jinol Vs State of Kerala

Sunil M.A Vs Anosh Chalson

Prasannakumari Amma, Vs P.B.Nooh

Manju M., Vs the Chief Engineer, H.R.M.

Subin Chandran @ Subin.K.C Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan P.K. Vs State of Kerala