Jomon Emmanuel vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18757 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
                     BAIL APPL. NO. 3938 OF 2021
   CRIME NO.116/2021 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
                              DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

         JOMON EMMANUEL
         AGED 45 YEARS
         S/O.MANI, VALAKKAMATTAM HOUSE,
         MARYKULAM, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLGE,
         UPPUTHURA, IDUKKI.

         BY ADVS.
         B.SURJITH
         RAHANA JOSE


RESPONDENT/COMPLAIANT:

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

         BY ADV.SRI.SEETHA.S, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.09.2021,    THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL.NO.3938 OF 2021
                                 -2-



                               ORDER

Petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.116/2021 of

Upputhara Police Station in Idukki district, which is registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354A IPC read

with Sections 11(iv), 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012.

2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on one day in the

last week of October, 2020, the petitioner trespassed into the

house of the victim girl and caught hold of her left hand and

thereby committed the offence aforementioned.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

mother of the victim had eloped with her paramour, one Manoj on

09.11.2020. Thereafter, grandfather of the victim filed a complaint

under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and copy of the

FIR is produced as Annexure-A1. The father of the victim girl, who

is undergoing sentence in a murder case, on getting release on

parole came to the house on 27.03.2021 and thereafter, the victim

alleged to have disclosed the incident to her father and thereafter,

the complaint is alleged to have filed.

4. According to the petitioner, the mother of the victim girl BAIL APPL.NO.3938 OF 2021

and her paramour were produced before the court below in his

vehicle and they returned back in that vehicle also. The father of

the victim on release on parole approached the petitioner and

enquired about the whereabouts of the wife and paramour, Manoj.

Since he is an hardened criminal involved in several grievous

crimes, petitioner did not disclose their whereabouts to him. It is

out of that ill will crimes of similar nature were lodged against him

and also Manoj

5. Copy of the FIR of the present crime is produced as

Annexure-A3 and copy of the FIR in crime No.117/2021, which is

registered against Manoj, with whom the mother of the victim

alleged to have been eloped is produced as Annexure-A4.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a perusal of

the above documents, it is clear that the case is falsely foisted

against the petitioner. He would also contend that in the FIS, the

statement of sexual intention has been interpolated subsequently

towards the end with ulterior motives. The copy of the FIS was

also drawn to my attention, which would show that the allegation

of sexual intention has been written towards the end of her

statement in a congested manner. In annexure A4 also a similar

insertion is seen. The prosecution alleges that another crime under BAIL APPL.NO.3938 OF 2021

Section 376 IPC was registered and was pending against the

petitioner. The petitioner produced the copy of the judgment in

that case. i.e., S.C.No.447/2015 which would show that he has

been acquitted that case. As of now, there is no other crime

pending against the petitioner also. There is also inordinate delay

in lodging FIS in the present crime, i.e, the crime was registered

on 27.03.2021 for the incident alleged to have taken place in

October 2020. Though the Public Prosecutor attempted to explain

the same by stating that the father of the victim was in jail,

antecedents of the father of the victim also prima facie hinders

this Court to accept the explanation offered. So on an evaluation of

the materials produced before this Court, the case of false

implication alleged by the petitioner cannot be ruled out prima

facie.

In the said circumstances, I am of the considered view that,

this petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner can be

allowed on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above BAIL APPL.NO.3938 OF 2021

crime.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required by him in writing. They shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

(iii) He shall not enter within the police station limits where the victim resides.

(iv) He shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court within ten days from the date of release; if he does not possess passport, an affidavit shall be filed to that effect;

(iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law. This bail application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE nkr