IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 409/2019 of SPECIAL COURT UNDER
POCSO ACT, MANJERI
CRIME NO. 38/2019 OF Thenhipalam Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUNEERA
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O.SADIQUE ALI,PARACHINAKKAL HOUSE,
OLAKARA.P.O,PERUVALLUR,PARAMBILPEDIKA,
TIRURANGADI TALUK,MALAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM PIN-682031
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM,
PIN-673636.
SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2019
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
B.A.No.1644 of 2019
Dated this the 08th day of March, 2019
ORDER
Heard Shri.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant accused and Shri.Amjad Ali, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a lady aged 34 years is the sole accused in
crime No.38/2019 of Thenhipalam Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 377 I.P.C and Section 3(d) r/w Section 4,
5(l), (m),(n) r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the
Juvanile Justice Act. The brief of the prosecution case is that the minor
victim boy in this case is now aged 9 years and is the son of the brother
of the lady accused’s husband and that the families of the accused and
the family of the minor victim boy’s parents are in the immediate
neighbourhood and that the minor boy is now studying in 3 rd std and
while he was studying in 1st std, the accused used to call him frequently
to her room and used to make him undressed and touch his private
parts and that she used to forcibly make the minor victim suck her
breast and used to touch her private parts and further that she used to
3
Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2019
repeat such actions even while he was studying in the 2 nd and 3rd std.
Further,the counsel of the petitioner would submit that there were
frequent family disputes between the accused’s husband and the
parents of the victim and that the present allegations has been false
fully hoisted to the child to tarnish the accused and her husband and
that even going by the First Information Statement given by the victim
would show that there has been considerable delay in making these
allegations after more than two years. Per contra, Shri.Amjad Ali,
learned Public Prosecutor would submit on the basis of instructions of
the respondent investigation officer, that this investigation would
reveal that before the registration of the crime, the mother of the victim
boy found him to be in moody and depressed mood and when she had
queried repeatedly, the victim had disclosed this aspects and further
that the victim’s father is working in the Gulf country and immediately
after these aspects were brought to the notice by the mother of the
victim, it was reported to the police and that in the facts and
circumstances of the cases like this, it cannot be said that the delay
would be fatal and at any rate those aspects may not be relevant at the
present stage of consideration for the plea for bail.
3. It is seen that the accused has been arrested on 12.02.2019.
4
Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2019
The Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation has not been
completed and that since the family of the accused and the family of the
victim were closely related, are living in the immediate neighbourhood,
that in all like hood, the accused would seriously prejudice the outcome
of the investigation as well as the trial and would wield influence over
the minor victim boy and that the fair conduct and finalisation of the
investigation warrants that the plea of regular bail may not be acceded
now.
4. After having heard both sides and taking into account the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the
plea for grant of regular bail need not be granted as of now, keeping in
view the very seriousness and gravity of the offences as well as the
allegations against the accused, more particularly the fact that the
investigation has not been completed and the victim is a minor boy
hardly aged 9 years and the accused is a lady aged 34 years, is none
other than his paternal aunt and as they are living in the immediate
neighbourhood, it is highly likely that the outcome of the investigation
could be prejudicially affected. In the light of these aspects, this Court
is not inclined to grant the plea for regular bail at this stage, keeping in
view the above said aspects, and also the fact that the investigation has
5
Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2019
not so far been completed.
In the light of these aspects, it is ordered that the bail application
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
PV
6
Bail Appl..No. 1644 of 2019
APPENDIX
ANNEXURE I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.MP.409/2019 DATED 23.02.2019 OF THE
SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES
AGAINST CHILDREN (ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT-I) MANJERI
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.38/2019 OF
THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT
\TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
PV