Kerala High Court
Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.6937 OF 2019
CRIME NO.2357/2019 OF Muvattupuzha Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
VARGHESE, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.LATE MOSA, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.FQ 1A,
WATER AUTHORITY QUARTERS, MARADY,
MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM PIN-686661
BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,
MUVATTUPUZHA 686661
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::2::
Bail Appl..No.6937 OF 2019
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------
B.A.No.6937 Of 2019
---------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2019.
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in Anx-VII FIR in Crime No.2357/2019 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.5(c), 5(m), 6, 11(i) & 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Secs.376(2)(l) & 354A(1)(i) of the I.P.C, on the basis of the complaint of the father of the minor victim girl at about 6:10 p.m. on 11.9.2019 in respect of the incidents that had happened 4 years' prior thereto.
2. The allegation made in the FI statement given by the de facto complainant (who is the father of the minor victim girl then aged 3 years) is to the effect that the petitioner-accused and the de facto complainant were residing nearby quarters of the Kerala Water Authority and about 4 years' prior to the FI statement dated 11.9.2019, that the petitioner-accused, the de facto complainant and the 3 year old daughter of the de facto complainant together were watching Television in the staff quarters of the de facto ::3::
Bail Appl..No.6937 OF 2019 complainant and thereafter the de facto complainant had gone to the bathroom and when he came back from the bathroom he had seen that the petitioner-accused had inserted his genital organ in the mouth of the 3 year old minor victim girl and on seeing the de facto complainant, the petitioner-accused ran away, etc.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the abovesaid allegations are absolutely false and fabricated and further that the alleged incidents had happened 4 years prior to the FI statement and the long delay of 4 years is totally unexplained by the de facto complainant and that the long unexplained delay in lodging the crime will go to the very root of the prosecution case as it affects the very credibility and believability of the version of the de facto complainant. Further that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was extremely worse and that the petitioner and his wife were constrained to give a complaint to the superior authority that the de facto complainant has earlier molested the wife of the petitioner and that many of the neighbouring quarters occupants, who are employees of the Kerala Water Authority, where the de facto complainant's wife is employed, have given a series of ::4::
Bail Appl..No.6937 OF 2019 complaints about the demeanour of the de facto complainant and that various complaints and representations are made by various neighbouring occupants before the superior authorities. Anxs-I to VI are the series of complaints given by the neighbouring quarters occupants, who are the employees of Kerala Water Authority filed by them before the superior authorities of the KWA against the de facto complainant. That it is only on account of previous complaints made by the petitioner about the molestation incident against the de facto complainant, he has chosen to fabricate a false incident alleged to have happened 4 years prior thereto and the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated, etc.
4. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances and taking into account the crucial aspect regarding the long unexplained delay of 4 years in lodging the instant crime, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be warranted for the smooth and effective conduct of the investigation.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested in connection with Crime No.2357/2019 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, then he shall be released on bail ::5::
Bail Appl..No.6937 OF 2019 on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on furnishing 2 solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
(iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.
(iv) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.
(vi) 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.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
bkn/-