Dismissed

Visobh K.v., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Feb 2020Bail Appl./849/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the applicant, accused in POCSO and IPC charges involving a 14-year-old victim, sought pre-arrest bail. Rejecting arguments regarding victim's alleged trafficker role, the court noted the accused's abscondance and dismissed the application citing the gravity of accusations.

What did the court decide?

Order of pre-arrest bail denied; application dismissed.

Visobh K.v., 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.849 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1346/2018 OF MUNAMBOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

VISOBH K.V., AGED 30 YEARS S/O.VIVEKANANDHAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, PALLIPORT P.O., MUNAMBAM, ERNAKULAM - 683 515.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRIBIJU ANTONY ALOOR SRI.K.P.PRASANTH SRI.VISHNU DILEEP SMT.T.S.KRISHNENDU SMT.ARCHANA SURESH SHRI. PRASANTH N.O.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 031.

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUNNAMBUM POLICE STATION, MUNAMBAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 515.

¶13

SRI RON BASTIAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.849 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶19

The applicant herein is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1346/2018 of the Munambam Police Station registered under Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 363 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2015.

¶20

The victim in the instant case is a minor girl aged 14 years. In her statement to the police, she alleges that the applicant took the victim in a car to Cherai Beach and after inducing her to smoke a joint physically abused her.

¶21

Sri.B.A.Aloor, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the accused Nos.2 and 3 were granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. It is further submitted that though the victim is a minor child, she is a trafficker of narcotics. It is further urged that though the incident had taken place on 2.8.2018 the law was set in motion after a protracted period. It is finally submitted that mere kissing of the child may not attract any of the offences.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is

¶23

Bail Appl..No.849 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

submitted that the applicant had approached this Court earlier and his application was dismissed as withdrawn as early as on 21^st January, 2019. He has kept himself scarce for more than a year thereafter. According to the learned counsel, the victim is a minor child who is just aged 14 years and no leniency is warranted. The investigation could not be proceeded with due to the abscondance of the applicant, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced. The child, who was administered narcotics and was subjected to abuse, is aged just 14 years. The accusations made against the victim by the applicant is unsubstantiated. The applicant has managed to keep himself scarce for more than a year. Having regard to the gravity of accusations, the age of the victim and the stage of investigation, I find no reason to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

¶27

This application will stand dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

IAP

Visobh K.v., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visobh K.v., 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

M/S.Sreenidhi Towers Private Limited Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Santhosh K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Suresh U.M.. Vs the District Executive Officer

Muhammed Asarudheen Vs State of Kerala

V.B.Asokan Vs Union of India

Dinesh Chandran Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner