Kerala High Court
Manoj M.P vs Public Prosecutor on 21 May, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941
Bail Appl.No.3305 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 146/2019 of SPECIAL
COURT UNDER POCSO ACT, KOZHIKODE DATED 30-04-2019
CRIME NO. 285/2019 OF Feroke Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
MANOJ M.P., AGED 47 YEARS
SON OF RAMACHANDRAN, CHERUKADAKUNNU HOUSE,
PANTHEERANAKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
::2::
Bail Appl.No.3305 of 2019
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------
B.A.No.3305 Of 2019
---------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2019.
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.285/2019 of Feroke Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.376(2)(n), 376(AB) of the I.P.C, Sec.3(c) r/w Secs.4 & 5 (l)(m) r/w Sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
2. The brief of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, aged 47 yeas, who is a married man, was in friendly terms with the father of the minor victim girl aged 9 years and on the basis of the said friendly relationship, he used to visit the house of the minor victim girl, where she is residing with her mother and that on 25.3.2019 at around 8:00 p.m he had gone to her residence where the minor victim girl was alone in the front room and the mother was taking bath and exploiting the said situation, the accused had rubbed his genital part on her private part and forcibly kissed on her face, lips, chest, stomach, etc., and when the mother had finished her bath, ::3::
Bail Appl.No.3305 of 2019
the petitioner had immediately left the scene. Later, incidents of the very same nature was repeated by the petitioner on the next two days and on 2.4.2019 all at a time when the mother was taking bath and the girl was alone in the front room. The crime has been registered on the basis of First Information Statement given by the minor victim girl aged 9 years on 5.4.2019 which led to the registration of the instant crime. The petitioner has been under judicial custody from 7.4.2019 onwards. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the continued detention of the petitioner is no longer necessary and further even going by the admitted case of the minor victim girl no allegation of penetrative sexual assault has been raised against the petitioner and the only allegation is that he had rubbed his genital part against private part of the girl and forcibly kissed on her face, lips, chest, stomach, etc. Further it is pointed out by Sri.Jacob Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the mother of the victim were having an intimate relationship even though they are married persons and based on the understanding, the petitioner had taken a house on lease at Ramanattukara where the mother of the child and the child has been staying and the lease deed was also ::4::Bail Appl.No.3305 of 2019
executed with the land lord and the lease deed has been suppressed by the Police authorities and the mother of the child is insisting that the petitioner should marry her after getting divorce from his wife and that she will also get divorce from her husband and as the petitioner was not amenable to such extreme steps, she has raised these false allegations through the child to blackmail him to marry her. Anx-A3 call list record of the mobile phone company would clearly show that the petitioner and the mother of the child have frequent mobile conversations before the submission of the FI statement and even thereafter.
3. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the investigation has not so far been finalised and that the petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses including the mother of the child and the child, etc., as even going by the admitted case of the petitioner is that he was having intimate relationship with the mother of the child.
4. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the aspect that no specific allegation has been raised about penetrative sexual assault on the victim and the petitioner has been undergoing judicial ::5::
Bail Appl.No.3305 of 2019
custody since 7.4.2019, this Court is of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner may not be really called for in this case. However, the interest of the prosecution would be subserved by ordering that the petitioner shall not reside within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the mother of the child and the child are now residing. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner could be granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and on his furnishing 2 solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the competent court concerned. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i). The petitioner will report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays for the next 3 months. Thereafter the petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him.
(ii). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses;
nor shall tamper with the evidence.
(iii). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
(iv) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the limits of the Police Station within whose limits the mother of the child and the child are ::6::
Bail Appl.No.3305 of 2019
residing, until the conclusion of the trial, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer in this case or in any other crimes and for attending to the courts in connection with this case or any other cases or for contacting his advocate/lawyer, etc.
(v) However, if there is any genuine need, the petitioner may temporarily enter into the said Police Station limit but only with due permission of the Investigating Officer.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
5. Before parting with the case, Sri.Jacob Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out about the alleged deficiency in the investigation. It is made clear that all such issues are left open to be agitated separately in appropriate proceedings.
With these observations and directions, the above Application stands allowed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
bkn/-