Kerala High Court
Vijayan Raman @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 12 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 22ND VAISAKHA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 2837 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 415/2022 OF FAST TRACK
SPECIAL COURT, KATTAPPANA (POCSO)
(CRIME NO. 269/2022 OF KUMILI POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
VIJAYAN RAMAN @ KANNAN
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O RAMAN,
VIJI BHAVAN, NEAR GANAPATHY COVIL,
MELVAZHAVEED BHAGAM, PAMPUPARA KARA,
CHAKKUPALLAM VILLAGE, KUMILY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685509
BY ADV P.V.JEEVESH
RESPONDENT/ STATE/ COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
AT ERNAKULAM,KOCHI., PIN - 682031
SRI.P.G. MANU, SR.PP.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
B.A.No. 2837 of 2023
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-------------------------------
B.A.No. 2837 of 2023
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of May, 2023
ORDER
This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.269 of
2022 of Kumili Police Station. He allegedly had committed the
offences punishable under Sections 3(a) r/w 4(ii), 5(m) r/w
Sections 6, 7 r/w 8 and 9(m) r/w 10 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case is now
pending before the Special Court for the trial of offences
under the POCSO Act, Kattappana as Sessions Case No.415 of
2022.
3. The prosecution case is that on 20.04.2022, the
petitioner took the victim girls, both aged 9 years and another
minor child from the local guardianship of their parents to his
house having Door No.XV/416 of Vandanmedu
Gramapanchayth. The petitioner between 12.30 p.m and 1.30
p.m on the said day had committed aggravated penetrative
B.A.No. 2837 of 2023
sexual assault on the victim girls. The victims were threatened
not to disclose the said facts to anyone else also.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The petitioner would contend that he did not
involve in the alleged crime and without any material or
evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent.
The investigation in the matter has been completed and the
final report is already filed. Therefore, there is no reason or
justification for his further detention.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that
the trial in the case has already commenced. A few witnesses
were already examined. The victim deposed before the court
reiterating the allegations against the petitioner. In such a
circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on
bail. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit
that this petition deserves only to be dismissed.
7. No doubt, the offences alleged against the
petitioner are serious in nature. The learned Special Court
dismissed the application for bail filed by the petitioner as per
B.A.No. 2837 of 2023
the order dated 23.03.2023. The learned Special Judge
pointed out that trial has already commenced and a part of
evidence is recorded. One of the victims who was already
examined before court had given evidence supporting the
case of the prosecution. In the view of the learned Special
Judge, the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would
entail disruption to the progress of the trial. I do not find any
reason to hold that the said view is incorrect. Moreover, if the
petitioner is released at this stage, the chances of his fleeing
away from the process of court cannot be ruled out.
In such circumstances, there is no reason to vary from
the finding of the Special Judge. This bail application is
therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
APA
