Muralidharan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 30, 2021

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1617744

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/1617744
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Apr 30, 2021
Case Number: CRL.A/185/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muralidharan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....appellant/ petitioner/ accused : muralidharan, aged 54 years, s/o. kesavankutty nair, pournami, near nss english medium school, pazhambalakkode, alathur taluk, palakkad district. by adv. sri.nireesh mathew respondents/ respondent/ state & de facto complainant : 1 state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, kochi-682031. 2 xxx xxx r2 by adv. shri.balamurali k.p. by public prosecutor smt.ranjitha this criminal appeal having been finally heard on 30-04-2021, the court on the same day passed the following:judgmentdated this the 30th day of april, 2021 this appeal is preferred by the accused in crime no.63/2021 of alathur police station, palakkad district against theorder of the sessions judge rejecting his application for anticipatorybail.2. the appellant is arrayed as an accused in the above mentioned crime for the offences under sections 354a(1) (ii) and (iv), 354d and 509 of ipc, section 12 read with section 11(i) and(iv) of the protection of children from sexual offences act, 2012,section 3(2)(va) of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) amendment act, 2015 (for short, 'the sc/st act') and section 75 of the juvenile justice (care & protection of children) act.3. the allegation of the prosecution, in brief is that thevictim, who is a member of the scheduled caste community, aged 15 years while studying in the tuition centre run by the accused, asked by the accused sexually coloured questions over mobile phone and on another occasion called her alone into the office room and again tried to converse with sexual overtones, thereby committing the offences alleged against him.4. the learned sessions judge in the impugned judgmentafter perusing the case diary found that there are sufficient materials to register the offence under the sc/st act, apart from the other provisions alleged against him and dismissed the application.5. in this appeal, an affidavit of the mother of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 556/2021 DATED 27-02-2021 OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.63/2021 OF Alathur Police Station, Palakkad APPELLANT/ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED : MURALIDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KESAVANKUTTY NAIR, POURNAMI, NEAR NSS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, PAZHAMBALAKKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT/ STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. 2 XXX XXX R2 BY ADV. SHRI.BALAMURALI K.P. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.RANJITHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-04-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of April, 2021 This appeal is preferred by the accused in Crime No.63/2021 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad District against the

order of the Sessions Judge rejecting his application for anticipatory

bail.

2. The appellant is arrayed as an accused in the above mentioned crime for the offences under Sections 354A(1) (ii) and (iv), 354D and 509 of IPC, Section 12 read with Section 11(i) and

(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,

Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, 'the SC/ST Act') and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act.

3. The allegation of the prosecution, in brief is that the

victim, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community, aged 15 years while studying in the tuition centre run by the accused, asked by the accused sexually coloured questions over mobile phone and on another occasion called her alone into the office room and again tried to converse with sexual overtones, thereby committing the offences alleged against him.

4. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment

after perusing the case diary found that there are sufficient materials to register the offence under the SC/ST Act, apart from the other provisions alleged against him and dismissed the application.

5. In this appeal, an affidavit of the mother of the victim has been placed for consideration stating that after the registration of the crime, in the conciliation talks between the parties and the accused, it has been agreed not to pursue the case. The accused relies upon the said affidavit and seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in the instant case.

6. I have perused the affidavit filed by the mother of the victim. The affidavit of the mother of the victim cannot have any legal validity especially in the nature of the allegations levelled

against the accused. In such an instance, the affidavit now produced for consideration cannot be legally relied upon, for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. From the nature of the allegations and the

circumstances arising in the case, it cannot be said that prima facie a case has not been made out against the accused for the offence under the provisions of the SC/ ST Act. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

However, considering the nature of the allegations, I direct the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer on any day within the next two weeks. On such surrender, the investigating officer shall carry out the necessary interrogation and after such interrogation, the petitioner shall be produced before the

jurisdictional Magistrate, in accordance with law. If the accused makes any application for grant of bail, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The appeal is thus dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM The words 'Jurisdictional Magistrate' mentioned in the last paragraph of judgment dated 30.04.2021 in Crl.A.185/2021 shall stand corrected as “the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Palakkad”, as per order dated 02.07.2021 in Crl..M.A.No.2/2021 in Crl.A.185/2021. Sd/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Muralidharan vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas