Pradheesh vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Aug 21, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1378218

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/1378218
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
Decided On: Aug 21, 2023
Case Number: Bail Appl./6366/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradheesh

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....was registered accordingly and the petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2023. since then, he has been under judicial detention. -3-4. heard sri. domson j. vattakuzhy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and smt. nima jacob, the learned public prosecutor appearing for the state.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. according to the learned counsel, he was falsely implicated in the said case on account of some mistaken notions. the petitioner and the de facto complainant are the neighbours.6. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that, there are specific allegations against the petitioner. now the final report is already submitted.7. i have carefully gone through the records. thestatement would indicate the sexual assault committed upon the de facto complainant. the de facto complainant is aged 14 years, whereas the petitioner is a person aged 28 years. when going through the contents of the statement given by the victim, there are ample materials to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature. if the-4- petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance for intimidating or influencing the de facto complainant, witnesses or other persons. therefore, i am of the view that this is not a fit case in which bail can be granted to the petitioner. hence, the application for regular bail is dismissed. sd/- ziyad rahman a.a. judge bpr -5- appendix of bail appl. 6366/2023 petitioner's annexures annexure a1 a true copy of the order crl.mp no. under the pocso act and kattapana idukki datd 24/07/2023

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945 CRIME NO.311/2023 OF PEERUMED POLICE STATION, S.C. NO.453/2023 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OFFENCES UNDER THE POCSO ACT, 2012, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: PRADHEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. DEVARAJAN, RAJ BHAVAN HOUSE, CHEMMANNU ODICHU KUTHI BHAGAM, ELAPPARA KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, FAIR FIELD ESTATE, FAIR FIELD KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PIN-685 501. BY ADV. DOMSON J. VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. ADV. NIMA JACOB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

ORDER

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2023 This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime

No.311/2023 of Peerumed Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 354, 354(A)(i), 354D, 450 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(n), 5(l) read with Section 6(1), 11(iv) read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner

trespassed into the residence of the survivor, a girl aged 14 years, on 19.04.2023 and indulged in penetrative sexual intercourse, thereby committed the offences. The crime was registered accordingly and the petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2023. Since then, he has been under judicial detention. -3-

4. Heard Sri. Domson J. Vattakuzhy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to the learned counsel, he was falsely implicated in the said case on account of some mistaken notions. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are the neighbours.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that, there are specific allegations against the petitioner. Now the final report is already submitted.

7. I have carefully gone through the records. The

statement would indicate the sexual assault committed upon the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant is aged 14 years, whereas the petitioner is a person aged 28 years. When going through the contents of the statement given by the victim, there are ample materials to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. The offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature. If the

-4- petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance for intimidating or influencing the de facto complainant, witnesses or other persons. Therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the application for regular bail is dismissed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE bpr -5- APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6366/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CRL.MP NO. UNDER THE POCSO ACT AND KATTAPANA IDUKKI DATD 24/07/2023

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