Allowed

V.Gopinath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2020Bail Appl./957/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application for an 80-year-old accused charged under POCSO and IPC. Citing his medical condition, advanced age, and the principle that bail is the rule, the Court granted bail on stringent conditions including medical guidelines, cooperation with investigation, and prohibition of offense commission.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner on sex sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to strict conditions including medical guidelines and interrogation.

V.Gopinath 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.957 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 96/2020 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO.645/2020 OF Cherpu Police Station , Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶9

V.GOPINATH AGED 80 YEARS

¶10

S/O. SANKARA MENON, APPAZHATH HOUSE, VALLACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 562.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B.A.No. 957 OF 2020 2

¶19

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶20

B.A.No.957 of 2020

¶21

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2020

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶24

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶25

Petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.645 of 2019 of Cherpu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 354 A of the IPC, Sections 7,8,9 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

¶26

The prosecution case is that the accused with sexual intention placed the 12 year old victim/his grand daughter close to him, touched her breast over the shoulder. It is alleged

¶27

B.A.No. 957 OF 2020 3

¶28

that the petitioner committed the sexual assault.

¶29

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted as such, no offence is made out. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner is aged 80 years. Petitioner produced Annexure A2 medical records to show that the petitioner is suffering from different illness. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim is his grand daughter. There is some dispute between the petitioner and his daughter. Because of that, this false case is alleged against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioner want the assistance of others even for walking. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The public Prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner committed serious sexual offences.

¶32

The alleged incident happened on 9.11.2019. The case

¶33

B.A.No. 957 OF 2020 4

¶34

is registered on 13.12.2019. This bail application was filed on 4.2.2010. There is no interim order restraining the police in arresting the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner is not arrested. The proviso to Section 438(1) Cr.P.C says that if there is no order restraining arrest, the police can arrest a petitioner even though, a Bail application is pending. Admitted case is that the petitioner is now aged 80 years. The counsel produced the medical records to show that the petitioner is suffering from different illness. The counsel also submitted that there is some dispute between the petitioner and her daughter and hence this false case is foisted against the petitioner. I do not want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶35

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

¶36

Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo

¶37

B.A.No. 957 OF 2020 5

¶38

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 directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶39

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.

¶40

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:

¶41

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶42

After interrogation, if the Investigating

¶43

B.A.No. 957 OF 2020 6

¶44

Officer propose to 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.

¶45

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.

¶46

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

¶47

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused,

¶48

B.A.No. 957 OF 2020 7

¶49

or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶50

The petitioner shall strictly 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.

¶51

If any of the above conditions are

¶52

violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law,

¶53

even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶56

al/-

V.Gopinath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gopinath 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

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sahad.C Vs the State of Kerala

Gireesh, Vs State of Kerala

Binu Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh S.R. Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash, Vs State of Kerala