Allowed

Anil George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Aug 2020Bail Appl./313/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application filed by an accused under POCSO and other offences termed Section 438 CrPC. Bail was granted on stringent conditions including appearance before IO, execution of bond, no leaving India, and adherence to social distancing guidelines amidst the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on stringent conditions including appearance before Investigating Officer, execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, no leaving India, and adherence to social distancing guidelin

Anil George Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.313 OF 2020

¶6

[Crime No. 65/CB/KTM/2017 (old No.65/CR/OCW/II/EKM)]

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANIL GEORGE AGED 39 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, RESIDING AT CHITTETHUKALTHILAYA PURACKAL HOUSE, VERROR P.O, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.J.ABHILASH

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31

¶12

BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A. NO.313 OF 2020 2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Dated this the 13th day of August 2020

¶17

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶18

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 65/CB/KTM/2017 (old No.65/CR/OCW/II/EKM). At present, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 354A(1)(iv), 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 14 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and under Sections 67B and 67D of the Information Technology Act.

¶19

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner posted some vulgar sexually coloured message and photographs of a minor girl from his Facebook account by name “Anumol Anu”. The prosecution alleges that, it was done intentionally to insult and outrage the modesty of the girl. The accused thereby committed the said offences.

¶20

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶21

B.A. NO.313 OF 2020 3

¶22

and the learned public prosecutor.

¶23

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, no offence is made out. The counsel submitted that, the girl is a close relative of the petitioner and there is no obscenity in the photographs uploaded by the petitioner. The counsel submitted that, there is no criminal intention to the petitioner while uploading the said photographs. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶24

6. The learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted

¶25

that, serious offences are alleged against the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case.

¶26

7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, except the offences under the POCSO Act, all other offences are bailable. This bail application was filed on 10.1.2020. There is no

¶27

B.A. NO.313 OF 2020 4

¶28

order prohibiting the arrest of the petitioner. Even now, the petitioner was not arrested. In the light of the proviso to Section 438(1) Cr.P.C., police can arrest the accused if there is no interim order passed by the Court. Probably, the police may be waiting for the disposal of this bail application. The petitioner has got a definite case that, the photo uploaded by him is not an obscene photo. The petitioner says that, the victim girl is a close relative of the petitioner. There is no bad intention to the petitioner while uploading the photograph. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and he is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶29

8. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary

¶30

B.A. NO.313 OF 2020 5

¶31

directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶32

9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶33

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶34

1. The petitioner shall appear

¶35

before the Investigating Officer

¶36

within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

¶37

2. After interrogation, if the

¶38

Investigating Officer proposes to

¶39

B.A. NO.313 OF 2020 6

¶40

arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

¶41

3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶42

4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;

¶43

5. The petitioner shall not

¶44

B.A. NO.313 OF 2020 7

¶45

commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶46

6. The petitioner shall strictly

¶47

abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic;

¶48

7. If any of the above conditions

¶49

are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

pkk

Anil George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil George 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anu Parambathkandy Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Nripin Thampan Vs State of Kerala

Anil Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Ignacious Arooja Vs State of Kerala

Sri.Aatti Aalam Sha Vs the State of Kerala

Jose, Vs the State of Kerala