Vishnu. a. vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided May 22, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1356248

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1356248
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
Decided On: May 22, 2023
Case Number: Bail Appl./3118/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishnu. a.

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....hrithwik, the learned public prosecutor, appearing for the state.5. the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are certain civil disputes between the petitioner's family as well as the family of the defactocomplainant. he also highlights the delay of three years in reporting the matter to the police. besides the same, it is also contended by him that the petitioner had purchased the building and the property wherein the incident had allegedly occurred only at a later point of time and as on the date of occurrence mentioned in the fir, he was not in possession of the same. apart from the above, it is also pointed out that the incident allegedly occurred at a time when the lockdown owing to covid-19 was imposed, and therefore the incident as alleged is highly improbable.6. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor wouldoppose the aforesaid application. it is pointed out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and such allegations are clearly stated in the fis given by the victim and also in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of cr.p.c. it is also pointed out that the investigation is in progress and very soon, the final report would be filed against the petitioner. the petitioner is a neighbour, and therefore, chances of intimidating/influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out.7. i have gone through the records which include the statement given by the victim before the police and the statement under section 164 of cr.p.c. in both the said statements, the actscommitted by the petitioner have been clearly mentioned. it is true that there is some delay in reporting the matter to the police. however, considering the age of the victim at the relevant time and also the nature of the allegations, the delay by itself cannot be a ground to assume that the allegations raised against thepetitioner are false. even though certain civil disputes between the parties are also.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3118 OF 2023 CRIME NO.245/2023 OF Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta PETITIONER/ACCUSED: VISHNU. A. AGED 29 YEARS S/O. ANIL, SITHARA BHAVANAM, PUNNAKKAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689652 BY ADVS. ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH VIJEESH K.S. SAKKIYA PARVIN SALEEM RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC, PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689533 3 XXXXXXXXXX AGED 14 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 245/2023 of

Aranmula Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 354 B, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7, 8, 9(1)(m), 4(2), 3(a), 6 read with 5(l)(m) of POCSO Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, during a day in April 2020,

the petitioner had penetrative sexual intercourse with the victim/3rd respondent while she was studying in 6 th standard. It is also alleged that the petitioner threatened her by stating that her videos would be published and therefore, she could not report the matter to the police earlier. Later, during a counselling, the matter was revealed, and the crime was registered based on the same in

the year 2023. As part of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2023, and since then, he has been under judicial detention. This application for regular bail is submitted by him in such circumstances.

4. Heard, Sri. Anish Antony Anathazhath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

5. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are certain civil disputes between the petitioner's family as well as the family of the defacto

complainant. He also highlights the delay of three years in reporting the matter to the police. Besides the same, it is also contended by him that the petitioner had purchased the building and the property wherein the incident had allegedly occurred only at a later point of time and as on the date of occurrence mentioned in the FIR, he was not in possession of the same. Apart from the above, it is also pointed out that the incident allegedly occurred at a time when the lockdown owing to Covid-19 was imposed, and therefore the incident as alleged is highly improbable.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would

oppose the aforesaid application. It is pointed out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and such allegations are clearly stated in the FIS given by the victim and also in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out that the investigation is in progress and very soon, the final report would be filed against the petitioner. The petitioner is a neighbour, and therefore, chances of intimidating/influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out.

7. I have gone through the records which include the statement given by the victim before the police and the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In both the said statements, the acts

committed by the petitioner have been clearly mentioned. It is true that there is some delay in reporting the matter to the police. However, considering the age of the victim at the relevant time and also the nature of the allegations, the delay by itself cannot be a ground to assume that the allegations raised against the

petitioner are false. Even though certain civil disputes between the parties are also highlighted, that is also a matter of investigation which is now in progress. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the probability with respect to the place of occurrence is also not a relevant factor at this point of time, taking note of the specific nature of the

statement given by the victim. In such circumstances, I do not find this as a fit case in which bail can be granted at this juncture. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE rpk APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3118/2023 Annexure-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 18.03.2023 Annexure-A2 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED Annexure-A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BY PETITIONERS SISTER

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Vishnu. a. vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.