Kerala High Court
Girishan @ Achu vs State Of Kerala on 1 June, 2020
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.3152 OF 2020
CRIME NO.446/2020 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
GIRISHAN @ ACHU,
AGED 23 YEARS,
S/O. VIKRAMAN, TC 27/2143, ACHUNIVAS, CHERKULAM,
STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI T.R RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.3152 OF 2020 2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. This application is taken up and heard through Videoconferencing.
3. The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.446 of 2020 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered under Section 354D(1) of the Indian Penal Code & Sections 11(I) and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. The victim in the case is a minor child aged 12 years. She resides in the very same neighborhood as the petitioner. She alleges in her statement that the petitioner used to constantly follow the child and used to wink at her. On 2.3.2020, he approached her and offered to take her on a bike on the premise that he was asked by her father to give her a ride. While she was with her friends, the petitioner is alleged to have told her that he likes her. On 14.3.2020, he is alleged to have trespassed into the house of the child and caused annoyance. These acts were committed by the petitioner with sexual intent is the allegation.
Bail Appl..No.3152 OF 2020 3
5. Sri. Ranju Mohan.G, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a near relative and the acts committed by him will not attract any of the provisions of Act 32 of 2012.
6. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. He pointed out that the petitioner is involved in several crimes and proceedings under section 107 of the Cr.P.C have also been initiated against him. He has been continuously stalking the child and if pre-arrest bail is granted, he would continue with the sexual harassment of the child, is the submission.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.
8. I find from the records that the petitioner is an accused in not less than four other crimes which include offences against women and under the NDPS Act, 1985. Act 32 of 2012 was enacted to protect children from offences of sexual assault and sexual harassment. The acts committed by the petitioner would fall within the teeth of the provisions of the Act. Prima facie, I find no material to conclude that the allegations are either frivolous or vexatious. It would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the powers of the police and give the petitioner a blanket protection under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the severity of accusations and Bail Appl..No.3152 OF 2020 4 the stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
This application will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
PS/1.6.2020 /True Copy/
P.A. To Judge