SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Saleem vs State Of Kerala on 1 April, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941

Bail Appl..No. 2167 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MC 515/2019 of SPECIAL COURT UNDER POCSO
ACT,(ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-1) MANJERI

CRIME NO. 60/2019 OF Edakkara Police Station , Malappuram

PETITIONER/S:

SALEEM
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT KANAKKANTHODIKA HOUSE,
PAYAMBAKKUNNU, PALEMAD POST, EDAKKARA AMSOM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR
SMT.K.L.SREEKALA
SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR
SRI.M.A.VINOD
SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EDAKKARA
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682031.

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.04.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2167/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No.2167 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.60/2019 of

Edakkara Police Station, which has been registered for offences

under Section 377 IPC and Section 3(a) r/w Sections 4, 5(m) r/w 6

of POCSO Act.

2. The brief of the prosecution case is that on a day in

December, 2018 (22.12.2018), the petitioner/accused aged 50

years, had inflicted anal penetrative sexual assault on the minor

victim boy, aged 6 years and that the minor victim boy had gone to

his mother’s parental home for the holidays and the

petitioner/accused being a neighbour, had called the boy to his

house and the above said penetrative sexual assault had happened

there.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has

been arrested on 25.2.2019 and has been under judicial custody

since then. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that

the allegations have been falsely foisted on him and that this is all

the more evident from the fact that the crime has been reported

only on 24.2.2019, which is more than two months after the alleged
B.A.No.2167/2019 3

incident and further that the continued detention of the petitioner

is no longer necessary and that this Court may incorporate strict

conditions to ensure the integrity of the investigation process and

the outcome of the trial process and that this Court may exercise its

discretion to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit

on the basis of instructions that after the traumatic incident, which

happened on 22.12.2018, the boy had not immediately reported the

matter to his parents and subsequently when his mother has asked

him whether he is interested to go to her parental house once

again, the boy had rejected the said offer and on detailed query,

the alleged incidents were disclosed to the parents and that is why

the crime has been reported late and immediately after the crime

has been reported to the Police authorities on 24.2.2019, they had

taken steps in the matter and the accused has been arrested the

next day on 25.2.2019 etc. Further it is submitted by the learned

Public Prosecutor that the allegations raised against the petitioner

are very grave and serious and that the petitioner, aged 50 years,

being the neighbour has misused the privilege as a neighbour and

had enticed the boy to come to his house and had inflicted anal

penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim boy hardly aged 6

years and further that the investigation has not so far been
B.A.No.2167/2019 4

completed and there is high chance that the petitioner may

influence the witnesses including minor victim boy and his parents

and that taking into account the extreme gravity of the offences as

well as the pendency of the investigation, this Court may not grant

regular bail to the petitioner.

5. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered

view that as the allegations disclosed in this petition are very grave

and serious and as the investigation process has not so far been

completed and as there is strong likelihood of the petitioner makes

the immediate neighbour of the victim’s mother’s parental house,

influencing the minor victim boy as well as his parents etc., it may

not be right and proper for this Court to grant regular bail to the

petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, it is ordered that the above

application for regular bail will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd
B.A.No.2167/2019 5
B.A.No.2167/2019 6
B.A.No.2167/2019 7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation