XXXXXXXX vs State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1441196
CourtKerala Orders High Court
Decided OnFeb-21-2022
Case NumberBail Appl./176/2022
JudgeHonourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
AppellantXXXXXXXX
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice gopinath p. monday, the 21st day of february 2022 / 2nd phalguna, 1943 bail appl. no. 176 of 2022 crime no.1107 of 2021 of kuruppampady police station, ernakulam petitioner/accused : aged 22 years xxxxxxxx, pin - 782120 by adv shabu sreedharan respondent/s: 1 state of kerala represented by public prosecutor,high court of kerala ernakulam, pin - 682031 2 xxxxxxxx aged 13 years by adv public prosecutor other present: sri. noushad k.a. (sr.pp) this bail application having come up for admission on 21.02.2022, the court on the same day delivered the following: b.a.no.176/2022 2orderthis is an application for regular bail.2. the petitioner is the accused in crime no.1107/2021 ofkuruppampady police station, ernakulam district, alleging commission of offences under sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the indian penal code and section 75 of the juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act.3. the allegation against the petitioner is that he committedpenetrative sexual assault on his step daughter on several occasions as a result of which she became pregnant. it is alleged that owing to the threat from the petitioner, the victim did not reveal the incident to anyone including her mother.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. it is submitted that he has been in custody from 26.9.2021 and that his continued detention is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation. it is submitted that a false complaint has been registered against the petitioner on account of someissues between the petitioner and the mother of the victim.5. i have heard the learned public prosecutor also.6. the learned public prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant ofbail. it is submitted that the pregnancy of the victim was terminated and the dna test conducted reveals that the petitioner was responsible for the pregnancy of the minor victim. it is pointed out that the report specifically b.a.no.176/2022 3 states that the petitioner is the biological father of the fetus of the victim. it is submitted that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance that the victim and other material witnesses may be intimidated in the matter. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, i am clearly of the opinion that this is a case, which warrants a custodial trial. the bail application fails and it is dismissed. sd/- gopinath p. judge acd b.a.no.176/2022 4 appendix of bail appl. 176/2022 petitioner annexures annexure1 the true copy of the order of the pocso court in cmp no. 937/2021 dated 16.11.2021
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 176 OF 2022 CRIME NO.1107 OF 2021 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED : AGED 22 YEARS XXXXXXXX, PIN - 782120 BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 XXXXXXXX AGED 13 YEARS BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.176/2022 2

ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1107/2021 of

Kuruppampady Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed

penetrative sexual assault on his step daughter on several occasions as a result of which she became pregnant. It is alleged that owing to the threat from the petitioner, the victim did not reveal the incident to anyone including her mother.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that he has been in custody from 26.9.2021 and that his continued detention is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation. It is submitted that a false complaint has been registered against the petitioner on account of some

issues between the petitioner and the mother of the victim.

5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of

bail. It is submitted that the pregnancy of the victim was terminated and the DNA test conducted reveals that the petitioner was responsible for the pregnancy of the minor victim. It is pointed out that the report specifically B.A.No.176/2022 3 states that the petitioner is the biological father of the fetus of the victim. It is submitted that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance that the victim and other material witnesses may be intimidated in the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am clearly of the opinion that this is a case, which warrants a custodial trial. The bail application fails and it is dismissed. sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd B.A.No.176/2022 4 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 176/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE POCSO COURT IN CMP NO. 937/2021 DATED 16.11.2021