Dismissed

Binu Vijayakumar, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8651/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Kerala dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving serious offences under the POCSO Act and IPC. The court held that given the gravity of the charges against the petitioner and the need for investigation, anticipatory bail was not appropriate, directing his surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. Petitioner directed to surrender to the Investigating Officer on or before 20.12.2021.

Binu Vijayakumar, Vs the 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 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8651 OF 2021

¶6

Crime No.2268/2021, Attingal Police Station

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BINU VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 48 YEARS S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, BINU NIVAS, AVANAVANCHERY POST, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 103.

¶9

BY ADV J.JAYAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031 (REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶12

2 ADDL R2 TRUPTI RAWAL BHAT (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED)

¶13

BY ADVS. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP)

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.8651/2021

-2-

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2268/2021, Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences under Sections Section 7 read with Sections 8, 9 (l), 9 (m), 9 (n) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with Section 354A and B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that for the period in between 01-04-2018 to 31-08-2020 the petitioner abused the minor victim girl while the petitioner was living with the mother of the victim girl at Abu Dhabi.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally submits that the allegations against the petitioner are totally false. It is submitted that going by the First Information Statement given by the victim girl, she was abused for the first time in the month of April 2018, when her mother had come to India and she was staying with the petitioner at Abu Dhabi. The details of the Passport of the petitioner and the mother of the victim girl are referred, to suggest that in the month of April 2018 the petitioner and the mother of the victim girl had visited India together and there was no occasion for the petitioner to be alone with the victim girl at Abu Dhabi in the month of April 2018. It is submitted that the petitioner and the mother of the victim girl are having some businesses and that the petitioner wanted to exit from the business and as part of financial settlement several cheques have been issued to the petitioner by the mother of the victim girl and the allegations have been raised for the first time after the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque issued from an account maintained by the mother of the victim

¶23

B.A. No.8651/2021

¶24

-3-

¶25

girl, in India. It is submitted that huge amounts are owed to the petitioner by the mother of the victim girl and the allegations are raised only with an attempt to evade payment.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant would submit that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary in the matter. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that the first incident of assault was actually in April 2017 and that the victim girl had made a mistake in stating that it was in April 2018. It is submitted that even before the petitioner had initiated any proceedings against the mother of the victim girl under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint had been filed regarding the incident of sexual assault by the petitioner before Dubai Police on 07-02-2021. It is submitted that whatsapp chats referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner will show that there was a friendly relationship even after the petitioner had returned to India. It is submitted that the Dubai Police had advised the mother of the victim girl to maintain a friendly relationship with the petitioner so that he would return to Dubai and thereafter proceedings can be initiated against him in Dubai. The learned Public Prosecutor refers to the Statement given by the minor victim girl (aged 12 years) under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is submitted that a reading of the 164 statement of the victim girl suggests that the petitioner had committed the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that there is a ring of truth to the statements made by the victim girl and since there are allegations and counter allegations and since the petitioner himself alleges that the complaint has been falsely given only to

¶27

B.A. No.8651/2021

¶28

-4-

¶29

escape from certain liabilities, a through investigation into the matter is required and the petitioner has to be subjected to interrogation. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner should not be granted anticipatory bail.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and considering the fact that there are several aspects to be investigated, I am of the opinion it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating officer in Crime No.2268/2021 of Attingal Police Station for the purpose of investigation into the matter. If the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating officer in Crime No.2268/2021 of Attingal Police Station on or before 20-12-2021 the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day. Subject to the above direction this application for anticipatory bail will stand dismissed.

¶31

It is made clear that the learned Magistrate will consider any bail application filed by the petitioner on its merits and without having regard to any observation contained in this order.

¶32

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶33

AMG

Binu Vijayakumar, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu Vijayakumar, v. the 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

Nirupal Bhuyan @ Rahul Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Anand Rex Vs the State of Kerala

Xxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Arun T M Vs State of Kerala

Abel Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Shajo S. Vs State of Kerala