Dismissed

Murali S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2021Bail Appl./544/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

B.A.No.544 of 2021 dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail. The accused, aged 22, was charged under IPC 354 and POCSO sections for possessing nude photos of a minor. The High Court held the case serious and inappropriate for pre-arrest bail due to the age of the accused being insufficient grounds where victim is a minor.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application dismissed without considering the request for release.

Murali S Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

B.A.No.544 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

¶7

Bail Appl..No.544 OF 2021

¶8

CRIME NO.642/2020 OF Cherpulassery Police Station , Palakkad

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

MURALI S AGED 22 YEARS SON OF SUBRAMANIAN, KARIMBANCHOLA HOUSE, THRIKKADEERI POST OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679502

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENT

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

AJITH MURALI- P.P

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.544 of 2021

ORDER

Application for pre-arrest bail.

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.642 of 2020 of Cherpulassery police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(1)(l) of IPC and Sections 7,8,9(L) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are in love. During the period from November 2018 to 4.11.2020 as requested by the petitioner the defacto complainant who is a minor had sent her nude photos and videos to his mobile phone and then continued with the same for the last two years. Thereby he has committed the aforesaid offences.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged only 22 years and he was in love with the minor child who is the victim in this case. He never demanded her to sent him her nude photos as alleged by the prosecution. But she used to sent it without any demand from his side and now the relationship has

¶25

B.A.No.544 of 2021

¶26

¶27

broken down just because of that. But he apprehends arrest in the case registered against him at the instance of the minor girl. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was also a demand from her side to marry her. But he has withdrawn from the decision which they have taken earlier for getting married. But when he had withdrawn from the said promise, she falsely implicated him in this case and thus the case was registered against him by the police. But he is totally innocent and hence, this application.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations that he has been falsely implicated in the case is absolutely false and incorrect. In fact as demanded by him the minor child had sent some nude photos as well videos to his mobile phone. As the investigation is only in the preliminary stage custodial interrogation is required and the mobile phone has to be recovered from his possession. So the application for pre-arrest bail is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

On hearing both sides, I find that very serious allegations have been levelled against this petitioner though he is aged only 22 years. The victim is a minor girl.

¶30

Having considered the seriousness of the allegations levelled against this petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case in which pre-arrest bail can be granted just because of the fact that he is aged

¶31

B.A.No.544 of 2021

¶32

¶33

only 22 years and he has no criminal antecedents.

¶34

Hence, I am not inclined to consider his request for pre-arrest

bail.

Dismissed.

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

smm

Murali S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali S 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syamala Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Irshad Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Vs State of Kerala