Allowed

James Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2021Bail Appl./5428/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail in a POCSO case alleging sexual assault on a minor girl by the accused, a farm worker and relative of the victim. Bail granted subject to custody for investigation and strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to limited custody for investigation and conditions including bond execution, reporting daily, non-interference with investigation, and surrender of passport.

James Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 5428 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.515 OF 2021 OF KALIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JAMES JOSEPH AGED 55 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, PEZHUMKATTIL HOUSE, THIDANDU, KONDOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. GEORGE SEBASTIAN ARUN LUCKOSE ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA (STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031.

¶12

BY SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 5428 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶18

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.515 of 2021 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 451, 354, 354(A)(i)(l), 354(A)(l)(IV) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 read with Section 7 and Section 10 read with Section 9(l)(n)(p) of the POCSO Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner who is a relative of the victim girl and was working with her mother on a farm had criminally trespassed into the house of the victim girl and had sexually assaulted her by touching her on her private parts and thereafter on several occasions molested her by kissing her and touching her on her back and thereby he committed the offences alleged.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the mother of the victim girl are close relatives and the petitioner was helping the mother of the victim girl to run a farm and he was living on the said farm. It is submitted that there arose some disputes between the petitioner and the mother of the

¶20

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 5428 OF 2021

¶22

victim girl and on 13.07.2021, the mother of the victim girl filed Annexure – E complaint before the Station House Officer, Kaliyar Police Station, principally regarding the disputes between the petitioner and the mother of the victim girl, where she also very vaguely makes reference to the molestation of the victim girl by the petitioner. It is pointed out from the statement given by the victim girl, which led to registration of Crime No.515 of 2021 of Kaliyar Police Station, that according to the victim girl, she had not revealed the misbehaviour of the petitioner to her mother till 20.07.2021. The contradiction is pointed out to show that the allegation against the petitioner is cooked up and maliciously made in order to settle other disputes between the petitioner and the mother of the victim girl. It is also submitted that at any rate the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the victim girl had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, where she had clearly detailed the instances of misbehaviour by the petitioner. It is submitted that while there are disputes between the petitioner and the mother of the victim girl, that by itself does not indicate that

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 5428 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

the complaint was malicious. It is submitted that investigation in the matter is progressing and the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage may affect the progress of investigation.

¶27

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for a proper investigation into the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject however to the condition that his limited custody be given to the prosecution for the purpose of a proper investigation into Crime No.515 of 2021 of Kaliyar Police Station.

¶28

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.515 of 2021 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki District, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court; (ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall report before the investigating officer in Crime No.515 of 2021 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki District,

¶30

¶31

BAIL APPL. NO. 5428 OF 2021

¶32

at 09.00AM on everyday from 08.12.2021 till 31.12.2021 and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

¶33

(iii)Petitioner shall not enter the local limits of Kaliyar Police station except for the purpose of complying with condition No.(ii) above;

¶34

(iv) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant o r any witness in Crime No.515 of 2021 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki District;

¶35

(v) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail;

¶36

(vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Jurisdictional Court.

¶37

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.515 of 2021 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶38

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶39

James Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Joseph 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

Muhammed Nazeeb Vs State of Kerala

Ameer Ali Vs the State of Kerala

Xxx Vs the State of Kerala

Xxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Kabeer P.T, Vs the State of Kerala

T K Subash Vs State of Kerala