IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 1382 of 2019
CRIME NO.132/2019 OF ELOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
SATHEESH K., AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O. KRISHNAN, CHERUVANCHIPARAMBU HOUSE,
KATHAMPOTTAH, CHITILAMCHERRY POST,
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
(CRIME NO.132/2019 OF ELOOR POLICE STATION,
BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.132 of
2019 of the Eloor Police Station registered under Sections 354A of the
IPC and Section 9(1)(m)(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
3. The victim is the minor child of the applicant. She is aged 5
years. A complaint was lodged by the wife of the applicant before the
police alleging that the applicant is a drunkard and used to abuse her
and the child. She further alleges that sometime in the year 2016,
while the applicant was sleeping next to the child, he placed his hands
on her private parts and subjected her to sexual abuse.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted
that the marriage between the applicant and his wife was solemnised
on 27.1.2012, after a prolonged love affair. They have two issues in
the wedlock, out of which the victim child is the elder one. The
applicant was working abroad for a substantially long period and
thereafter, he terminated his employment and came back to India.
This was not to the liking of his wife and her family members. There
occurred serious strain in the marriage which led to the registration of
Crime No.130 of 2019 of the Eloor Police Station, inter alia, under
Section 498A of the IPC. While giving information in the said crime,
the de facto complainant had no case that the applicant had
committed any offensive act on his own child. When the applicant
informed the de facto complainant that he would be moving the Family
court for getting custody of his children, false allegations are raised
against him, argues the learned counsel.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who submitted that
the allegations are grave.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone
through the allegations in Crime No.130 of 2019 as well as in the
instant crime. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the applicant, when information was furnished which led to the
registration of Crime No.130 of 2019, the de facto complainant had no
case that the applicant herein had subjected the child to abuse. The
records reveal that the applicant and his wife do not see eye to eye.
The crime has been registered in respect of some incident which took
place in the year 2016. The contention of the learned counsel that
strain in the relationship has persuaded the wife to level wild
allegations cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The applicant was
arrested on 22.2.2019 and he has been in custody since then. Having
regard to the nature of the accusations, the period of detention
undergone and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that the
applicant can now be released on bail on stringent conditions.
In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant
shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above
order shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on every Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 1
p.m., for a period of 3 months or till final report is
filed, whichever is earlier.
2. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
3. He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application
for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with the law.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
krj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE