Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRIME NO.150/2023 OF VELLARIKKUNDU POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PETITIONER/ACCUSED: K. VISHNU AGED 28 YEARS S/O KUNHIKANNAN, KOOLIPPARA , KANAKAPPALLY BALAL VILLAGE, VELLARIKKUNDU TALUK KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671533 BY ADV SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV ADV SEETHA S- SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.150/2023 of Vellarikkundu Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 376(3) of IPC and also under Sections 4(2), 3(a), 14 and 13 of the POCSO Act.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 24.12.2022 at about
11.00 hours, the petitioner trespassed into the bedroom of the victim girl, aged 14 years, committed forceful sexual assault upon her and videographed the alleged sexual intercourse, thereby committing the offence. The crime was registered based on the same, and as part of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 04.04.2023. Since then, he has been under judicial detention. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.
3. Heard Sri.Sojan Micheal learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and Smt.Seetha S. learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The notice of this application was served upon the victim through the Station House Officer concerned, but there is no appearance for her.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to him, he was implicated falsely in the said case. It is further contended that even though there is allegation that the petitioner had videographed the alleged sexual intercourse, there is nothing to indicate the same, as no recovery of such video clippings could be made. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.04.2023, and no purpose would be served by continuing the incarceration of the petitioner any further.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would
oppose the aforesaid bail application. It is pointed out that, as per the statement of the victim, the offence committed by the petitioner is clearly revealed, the matter is under investigation and therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner would cause prejudice to the ongoing investigation. Dismissal of the bail application is sought in such circumstances.
6. I have gone through the records, including the First Information Statement of the victim. Even though the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in a relationship and there was consensus between the parties for the sexual intercourse, a reading of the FIS gives a different impression. In the said statement, the forceful nature of the sexual acts is clearly described. It is also discernible that, in the statement given by the victim before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also, she reiterated the same. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the victim is aged 14 years, the consent is not all relevant to the offence. The matter is now under investigation.
In such circumstances, taking note of the seriousness of the allegations and the age of the victim, I do not find this as a fit case in which bail can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Thus, I do not find any merit in this application, and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs