Dismissed

Sachu, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6897/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning alleged sexual assault on a minor, the court held that the allegations were serious and grave, requiring custodial interrogation by the agency. It ruled the case unfit for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed. Petitioner to surrender for consideration of regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C.

Sachu, 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 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.6897 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.489/2019 OF NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SACHU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RAJKUMAR, PLAVILA VEEDU, ILAMANOORKONAM, NARUVAMOODU P.O., PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695528.

¶13

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

B. A. No. 6897 of 2019

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2019

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The subject crime in this case is Crime No.489/2019 of Naruvamoodu Police Station,which was initially registered under Sec.57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, as a person missing case, on account of missing of the minor victim girl aged 14 years from her residence. The police after investigation has later found that the minor victim girl was in the custody of the petitioner, and thereafter altered the offence of the instant crime to those as per Secs.366A & 376(1) of the IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶20

The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner aged 20 years had induced the minor victim girl aged 14 years (daughter of the defacto complainant) on the pretence of love, and on 20.7.2019 he had taken her away from her residence, and had sexual intercourse with her on that day.

¶21

The learned Prosecutor would point out that the minor victim girl has been subjected to medical examination and

¶22

..3..

¶23

B.A. No. 6897 /2019

¶24

the reports would show that the hymen of the victim is torn and the findings are suggestive of penetrative sexual assault.

¶25

The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and further that the minor victim girl was theatened by another accused person who is involved in Anx.A1 Crime No.237/2018 of Naruvamoodu Police Station,which was registered on 28.2.2018 for offences punishable under Secs.354A & 506(i) of the IPC and Secs.11(vi) & 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and out of fear and anxiety that the accused in Anx.A1 crime would harm her, she used to seek the help of the petitioner. Further the petitioner's counsel would urge that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary and this Court may grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to any stringent conditions.

¶26

The learned Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and has urged that the investigation has clearly shown that the petitioner aged 20 years had taken away the minor victim girl aged 14 years from her residence on 20.07.2019 and thereafter he had sexual intercourse with her on that day, and this

¶27

..4..

¶28

B.A. No. 6897 /2019

¶29

is also confirmed by the medical examination report issued by the competent doctor after examination of the minor victim girl. Further that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and grave, and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly imperative for the smooth and effective conduct of investigation in this case.

¶30

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is constrained to take the view that the allegations disclosed against the petitioner are serious and grave and it will not be right and proper for this Court to over rule the abovesaid considered stand taken by the investigating agency that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly necessary for the effective conduct of investigation in this crime, etc. Accordingly this Court is inclined to take the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the extra ordinary discretion conferred under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail.

¶31

The counsel for the petitioner would then submit that the petitioner will immediately surrender before the Investigating

¶32

B.A. No. 6897 /2019

¶33

Officer concerned in this crime, so that his bail application under Sec.437 of the Cr.P.C. could be considered and decided by the Special Court concerned on the same day of his production after completion of interrogation.

¶34

This Court has only held that this is not a fit case to exercise the extra ordinary discretion in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail, and nothing in this order will preclude the petitioner from availing all other remedies open to him in accordance with law. The application fails and the same will stand dismissed.

¶35

With these observations the above Bail Application will stand dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶38

MMG

Sachu, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachu, 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

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vineetha Vs State of Kerala

Thomas a.P., Vs Anu Thomas

Kiran C.K. Vs State of Kerala

Muneer K. Vs State of Kerala