Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE1T DAY OF JANUARY201411TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 8521 of 2013 --------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 440/2013 OF VELLAMUNDA POLICE STATION , WAYANAD. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- EBRAHIM, AGED46YEARS, S/O. MOIDU, KALATHIL HOUSE, VELLILADI, THETTAMALA POST, KANHIRANGAD VILLAGE, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.DR.MATHEW AKUZHALANADAN SMT.VINEETHA V.KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.P.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0101-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. P.BHAVADASAN, J.
--------------------------------------- Bail Application No.8521 OF2013--------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2014. ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.440/2013 of Vellamunda Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 377 IPC and Sections 11(1) and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, being a neighbour, had sexually abused the victim who is now studying in the 8th standard, in the year 2006 and he also made efforts to do so in 2013.
2. The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is pointed out that the allegation that there was solicitation in 2013 also is with the intention to make the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 applicable to the facts of the case so as to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner would say that he has not committed any act as alleged. B.A. No.8521/2013 2 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is still going on.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, even though it may not be possible to say that the petitioner is totally innocent, the fact remains that the incident complained of took place in 2006. Crime was registered on the basis of the revelation of the child before the counsellors in the school. There may be some substance in the complaint that solicitation alleged to have been made in 2013 is with the intention of making applicable the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 so as to deny bail to the petitioner. Whatever that be, the petitioner has been in custody from 04.12.2013 onwards. The continued custody of the petitioner appears to be unnecessary. The application is allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. B.A. No.8521/2013 3 ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by him. iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A.to Judge.