Kerala High Court
Ajith vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3095 OF 2024
CRIME NO.177/2024 OF MALAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2024 IN CRMP NO.750 OF 2024 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (ATROCITIES & SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AJITH
AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SIMMON,
KAITHAKUZHI, VEKOTTUKONAM, KIZHAKKINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,
MAILACHAL, DALUMUGHAM.P.O., NOW RESIDING AT AGAPPAVILA,
MAILACHAL, DALUMUGHAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 125.
BY ADVS.
K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
N.P.ASHA
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682 031.
BY ADV. SEENA C (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3095/2024 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
----------------------------------------
B.A.No.3095 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 177/2024 of
Malayinkeezhu Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Sections 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(m)(n) of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
3. The victim in this case is a minor boy aged 10 years
and he was studying in 5 th standard at the time of the incident.
The petitioner is a close relative of the victim and he went to the
house of the victim for the funeral ceremony of his sister. On
13-02-2024, the petitioner took the victim to a bedroom, and
forcefully hold his buttocks and inappropriately touched his
private parts. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed
the offences.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct and the
petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant him
bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application
and submitted that very serious allegations are against the
petitioner.
5. Admittedly the petitioner is a relative of the victim. It
is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious.
But the case is to be proved though oral evidence. The continued
incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Since, the petitioner is a close
relative, there can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the
jurisdictional limit of the Police Station for a period of 30 days, so
that the investigation can continue. The petitioner shall appear
before the investigating officer as and when required.
6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail
is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement
(2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier
judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail
remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and
refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the
opportunity of securing fair trial.
7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following
directions:
i. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer
for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall
co-operate with the investigation and 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.
iii. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the
jurisdictional Court.
iv. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of
which he is suspected.
v. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of
Malayinkeezhu Police Station for a period of 30 days. But I
make it clear that the petitioner can appear before the
investigating officer as and when directed. The petitioner
shall furnish his address and phone number to the
investigating officer within two days from the date of
release.
vi. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner,
the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to
law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
ats
