Kerala High Court
Fazilulla C.K vs The State Of Kerala on 26 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 5510 OF 2021
Crime No.551/2021 of Mukkam Police Station
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 156/2021 OF SPECIAL
COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
FAZILULLA C.K.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.ALIKUTTY, PUTHIYODATH HOUSE,
NORTH KOZHAKOTTOOR, AREACODE POST,
ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM - 673 639.
BY ADVS.
K.M.FIROZ
M.SHAJNA
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUKKAM POLICE STATION,
MUKKAM POLICE STATION,
MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 602.
BY ADV.SMT.SEETHA S, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL.NO.5510 OF 2021
-2-
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.551/2021 of
Mukkam Police Station.The Crime has been registered under
Section.8 R/W Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual
offences Act,2012.
2. The prosecution case is that on 11.06.2021 at about
19 hours, at the road margin in front of the Areekkode Chicken
Stall, petitioner/accused caught hold of the penis of the minor
boy aged 12 years with sexual intent and left the place when
the elder brother of the victim came back after purchasing
articles from the nearby supermarket. Thereby the accused
alleged to have committed the offence aforementioned.
3. Heard both sides.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the incident alleged to have occurred in a market place when
the victim was sitting on a motor bike. The incident took place
on 11.06.2021 and that the complaint has been filed only on
26.06.2021. It is stated in the FIS that the child informed about
the incident to his brother. There is a delay of 15 days in
BAIL APPL.NO.5510 OF 2021
lodging the FIS. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
contended that the victim tried to steal money from a
customer, came to the stall of the petitioner , for which he
scolded the child and that is the reason for implicating him
falsely in this case.Further he would content that the nature of
allegation does not require any custodial interrogation.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand
would contend that the investigation made so far revealed the
commission of the offence as alleged and the victim has
narrated the incident clearly in the FIS and in the 164 statement
also. The reason for the delay caused has been clearly
explained .
8. Though there is delay of 15 days in lodging the FIS
,the reason for the delay is explained as the lock down and
Covid 19 pandemic. Copy of the FIR and FIS has been
produced at the instance of the prosecuter and perused.After
having considered the rival contentions including the fact that
the victim boy is only 12 years old and the offence alleged
against the petitioner is also one under Sections 7 & 8 of the
PoCSO Act, it can not be found that custodial interrogation is
BAIL APPL.NO.5510 OF 2021
not required in this case. In view of the nature of the offence
alleged to have committed by the petitioner to a minor boy aged
12 years, release of petitioner on pre arrest bail also would give
a bad message to the society. Hence I find no justifiable reason
to entertain this petition.
In the result, petition dismissed.
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA
JUDGE
nkr/26.08.2021
