Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

XX XX XX XX vs State of Kerala

XX XX XX XX vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Aug 03, 2023
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1372437

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./5507/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

XX XX XX XX

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....in such circumstances.3. heard sri.rahmathullah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and sri.c.s.hrithwik, learned public prosecutor for the state.4. i have gone through the records. even though notice of the bail application to the victim/ de facto complainant was served through the station house officer, there is no appearanceb.a.no.5507/23 3 for the victim, when the matter is taken up today. however, when the notice was served upon her she had endorsed on the said notice that, she has objection in granting the bail to the petitioner. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. according to him, the 1st wife, the mother of the victim, passed away much earlier. thereafter, the petitioner married another woman and there are some disputes between him and the 2 nd wife. according to him, a false complaint was submitted at the instance of the 2 nd wife. it is further pointed out that he has been under judicial detention for the past more than two months.5. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor opposed the said prayer by pointing out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and hence dismissal of the application was sought.6. i have gone through the records. from the statementgiven by the victim before the police as well as the learned magistrate under section 164 cr.p.c., it can be seen that specific instances of sexual assaults are clearly mentioned. besides the same, it is also stated therein that, the petitioner used to show obscene videos to the victim and another girl and thus promptedb.a.no.5507/23 4 them to imitate the said acts. the child even stated that, she used to do some of the said acts and she likes it. thus, it is evident from the said statement that even the mind of the child got polluted due to the acts of the petitioner. more over, the petitioner is the father of the victim. if the release of the petitioner is ordered at this juncture, probability of.....

Full Judgment

B.A.No.5507/23 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 5507 OF 2023 PETITIONER/ACCUSED: XX XX XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXX BY ADVS. RAHMATHULLAH.M KARTHIK J SEKHAR RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WANDOOR POLICE STATION, WANDOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679 328. SRI.HRITHIK.C.S-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.5507/23 2

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.386 of 2023 of Wandoor Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i)(iii), 354 A(2) of IPC, Section 10 r/w 9(1) (m) (n), 8 r/w 7, 12 r/w 11(ii)(iii) of POCSO Act and Section 75 of JJ Act.

2. The crime was registered on the basis of the

information furnished by the victim, a girl aged 7 years, who is none other than the daughter of the petitioner. Allegation is that, during the period of 01.06.2021 and 30.05.2022, the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the petitioner and thereby committed the offence. As part of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 31.05.2023 and since then, he has been under judicial detention. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.

3. Heard Sri.Rahmathullah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. I have gone through the records. Even though notice of the bail application to the victim/ de facto complainant was served through the Station House Officer, there is no appearance

B.A.No.5507/23 3 for the victim, when the matter is taken up today. However, when the notice was served upon her she had endorsed on the said notice that, she has objection in granting the bail to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to him, the 1st wife, the mother of the victim, passed away much earlier. Thereafter, the petitioner married another woman and there are some disputes between him and the 2 nd wife. According to him, a false complaint was submitted at the instance of the 2 nd wife. It is further pointed out that he has been under judicial detention for the past more than two months.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said prayer by pointing out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and hence dismissal of the application was sought.

6. I have gone through the records. From the statement

given by the victim before the Police as well as the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it can be seen that specific instances of sexual assaults are clearly mentioned. Besides the same, it is also stated therein that, the petitioner used to show obscene videos to the victim and another girl and thus prompted

B.A.No.5507/23 4 them to imitate the said acts. The child even stated that, she used to do some of the said acts and she likes it. Thus, it is evident from the said statement that even the mind of the child got polluted due to the acts of the petitioner. More over, the petitioner is the father of the victim. If the release of the petitioner is ordered at this juncture, probability of influencing the victim cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/5.8.23

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial