Allowed

Somarajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Oct 2019Bail Appl./4366/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram Alexander Thomas, J. An accused faced with allegations under Sec.354 IPC and POCSO Act sought anticipatory bail citing unexplained delay in filing FIR and false implications by the victim's mother. The Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary due to lack of serious penetrative assault allegations. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions restraining the accused from entering t

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail on executing bond for Rs. 40,000 and furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to stringent conditions including non-entry into the victim's residen

Somarajan 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

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.4366 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1034/2019 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SOMARAJAN, AGED 58, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, SIVAKRIPA, CC 9/1071, KALLAMPALLIL, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 017.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.V.H.JASMINE, SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶12

*ADDL. 2 BINU VIDYADHARAN,

¶13

AGED 46, S/O VIDHYADHARAN, VIDYA MANDIRAM, PUTHUPPALLY (SOUTH) P.O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 690 527.

¶14

*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.8.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2019 IN B.A.NO.4366/2019.

¶15

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA, FOR R2

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

B.A. No. 4366 of 2019

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2019

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.1034/2019 of Kayamkulam Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.354 of the IPC and Secs.10, 9m & 9n of the POCSO Act, 2012, on the basis of FIS given by minor victim girl on 6.4.2019 at about 11 am in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened on 25.8.2018 at 10 am.

¶22

The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner accused aged 58 years is the minor victim girl's father's sister's husband, and that the petitioner accused had come to the victim girl's residence during Onam holidays, and on 25.8.2018, at 10 am when she was alone in her study room, the petitioner accused had caught hold of her breast and pressed it, and thereafter he had held the girl on his lap and touched her private parts, and thereby the petitioner accused has committed the abovesaid offences.

¶23

B.A. No. 4366 /2019

¶24

..3..

¶25

The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid incidents are absolutely false and fabricated, and further that the alleged incident is said to have happened on 25.8.2018 whereas the FIS and crime was lodged as late as on 6.4.2019 and there is no explanation for the long delay of more than 7½ months in reporting the crime to the police, and the long and unexplained delay would vitiate the entire criminal proceedings in this regard, as it affects the very believability and credibility of the prosecution case. Further, that the minor victim girl's mother had taken steps to spread a false story that her son is suffering from kidney failure and used social media on various occasions seeking financial help from the public. Since it was a false request, her husband had objected to it, and that she is also engaged in certain other undesirable activities, and the victim's father had given a series of complaints against the victim's mother as evident from Anx.A1 petition dated 3.3.2019 submitted before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam, Anx.A3 petition dated 28.3.2019 submitted before the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, and Anx.A4 complaint dated 29.3.2019 submitted by him before the Child Welfare Committee, Alappuzha, and Anx.A2 petition

¶26

..4..

¶27

B.A. No. 4366 /2019

¶28

dated 4.3.2019 given by him before the Secretarty of SNDP Sakha, and a news item has also come out regarding the abovesaid false representation given by the victim's mother as evident from Anx.A5 dated 31.3.2019, etc. The victim girl's mother was under the impression that the petitioner had also supported the victim's father to give the abovesaid complaint to various authorities and it is only to wreck vengeance in that regard that she has falsely instigated the victim girl to make instant false allegations. Further that, the victim girl's mother has also made false allegations against the victim's father alleging that he has committed the offene as per Sec.307 of the IPC falsely alleged that he had attempted to murder her, and a crime No.1049/2019 of Kayamkulam Police Station has been registered against the victim's father at the instance of the victim's mother. Further, the counsel for the petitioner would point out that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case, and the petitioner will fully co-operate in the investigation process, and that this Court may grant him anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions.

¶29

B.A. No. 4366 /2019

¶30

The learned Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶31

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly taking into account the long and unexplained delay of about 7½ months in the lodging of case, as well as some of the other attendant circumstances, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for effectuating smooth and fair conduct of investigation in this case. Moreover, it is seen that there are no serious allegations of penetrative sexual assault in this case.

¶32

However, the learned Prosecutor has cautioned this Court that since the petitioner is closely related to the victim girl, there is possibility of the petitioner intimidating or influencing the witnesses more particularly the minor victim girl and her family members if he is let out on bail.

¶33

In order to alleviate the said apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is proposed to order as a safeguard that the petitioner shall not enter or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the minor victim girl is residing

¶34

..6..

¶35

B.A. No. 4366 /2019

¶36

or studying until the conclusion of trial process in this case, subject to certain exceptions which will be dealt with hereinafter. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is residing in Karyavattom, Thiruvananthapuram, and the minor victim girl is residing in Kayamkulam, and that both are residing within the limits of two different Police Stations.

¶37

Accordingly it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

B.A. No. 4366 /2019

¶43

..7..

¶44

v. The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near to the educational institution or residence of the minor victim girl.

¶45

vi. The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the minor victim girl is residing or studying until the conclusion of trial process in this case, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer concerned in this crime, or for attending to the Court in relation to this case or any other cases or for contacting his lawyers/advocates concerned.

¶46

vii. However if on account of any emergent personal need the petitioner wants to visit the said area, he may do so but only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶47

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶51

MMG

Somarajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somarajan 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

Lesley Daniel Vs State of Kerala

K.Sundaran Vs Dr.Rajan.N Khobragade I.A.S

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shiras Shamsuddin Vs State of Kerala

Mathew N.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Mayankutty Vs State of Kerala