Anil Soman vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23189 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
   WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 7879 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 983/2021 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                             COURT-I, THRISSUR
 CRIME NO.185/2021 OF NEDUMPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT


PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:

            ANIL SOMAN
            AGED 23 YEARS
            S/O SOMAN,
            RESIDING AT VARUTHUNDIL HOUSE, UPPOODU VTC
            KIZHAKKEKALLADA,
            EAST KALLAD VILLAGE,
            KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691502.

            BY ADVS.
            J.R.PREM NAVAZ
            SUMEEN S.



RESPONDENT/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)




     THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 7879 OF 2021
                                    2

                                ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.185/2021 of

Nedumpuzha Police Station, Thrissur District alleging commission of

offences under Sections 363, 420, 506(i) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 4 r/w 3, 6 r/w 5, 17 r/w 16 and 21 r/w 19 of the

POCSO Act and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.

3. The 1st accused in Crime No.185/2021 is alleged to have

committed sexual assault and rape on the minor victim girl, who was 17

years at the time of the incident. Accused Nos.2 to 6 are alleged to have

aided and abetted the 1st accused in committing the above offences. As

far as the petitioner/6th accused is concerned, there is an additional

allegation that he down loaded the videos of the sexual assault

committed by the 1st accused on the victim girl and also criminally

intimidated the victim girl stating that he would circulate the said

videos.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a

case where the alleged sexual assault was carried out only by the 1 st BAIL APPL. NO. 7879 OF 2021

accused. It is submitted that the petitioner has neither aided nor abetted

the 1st accused in the commission of the alleged crime. The only

allegation against the petitioner/6th accused is that he obtained the

videos of the 1st accused abusing the victim girl and threatened her that

it would be circulated to others. It is finally submitted that accused

Nos.2 to 5 have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court and the

case of the petitioner is not different.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that

the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious. It is submitted

that there are allegations of commission of offence under provisions of

the POCSO Act including the commission of offences under Sections 17

r/w 16 and 21 r/w 19 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted that even for a

moment if it is accepted that the petitioner was not directly involved in

the commission of offence on the victim girl, by virtue of the provisions

contained in Section 16 of the POCSO Act, the petitioner is deemed to be

guilty of offences under that Act committed by the 1 st accused as there is

clear evidence of abetment.

6. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the view that

taking into account of the nature of the allegations against the BAIL APPL. NO. 7879 OF 2021

petitioner, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. Even assuming for a moment that the case of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the allegations involve the

downloading of videos of the 1st accused committing rape on the minor

victim girl and an allegation of threat to the minor victim girl that the

said videos would be circulated. I am not, therefore, convinced that this

is a case where I could hold that the interrogation of the petitioner is not

necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the

nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I cannot also rule out the

threat to the minor victim girl at the instance of the petitioner. This will

be disastrous to a proper investigation of the matter. I am, therefore, of

the view that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that there may be a direction to the jurisdictional court to

consider the bail application for the petitioner on the date of surrender

itself. Taking into account of the nature of the allegations, I am not

inclined to issue such a direction. It is for the petitioner to surrender

and seek bail from the jurisdictional court.

8. I make it clear that the observations in this order are only for BAIL APPL. NO. 7879 OF 2021

the purpose of considering the entitlement of the petitioner for bail and

should not be treated as finding on any point.

This bail application stands dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE bng/24/11/21