Kerala High Court
Abdul Latheef M vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2023
B.A.No.1380/2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944
BAIL APPL. NO. 1380 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL LATHEEF M.,
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O.MEERASAHIB, PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR FIDA CASHEW
FACTORY, PUNNOOR, NEDUMPANA CHERI & VILLAGE, KOLLAM
TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 576.
BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SAMEER M NAIR
GEETHU KRISHNAN
SAILAKSHMI MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KANNANALLOOR POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 576.
ADV.C.S HRITHWIK - SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1380/2023 2
ORDER
This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.109/23 of Kannanalloor Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(i), 254(A)(1)(ii), 354D(1) of IPC and S.8 r/w 9(i) & 9(1), 12 r/w 11(iv) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is as follows:
The victim is a girl aged 15 years. On 18.01.2023 at 9 A.M., while she was waiting for the school bus in front of the Anganvadi Bus Stop in front of her house, an old man dragged her to a nearby property where a building under construction was situated. Thereafter, he removed his dress and showed his penis to the victim. She was also asked to grab his penis. It is also alleged that he touched on the private part of the victim. Later, when the school bus came, she was released. On the same day, while she was returning from school on the bus, the same thing repeated, and the B.A.No.1380/2023 3 petitioner was waiting for her at the bus stop. The aforesaid incident occurred on 18.01.2023, and the victim later reported the matter to her teacher, who in turn informed her parents, which resulted in the information being furnished before the police. The crime was registered based on the same. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the investigation of the case on 25.01.2023. Since then, he has been under judicial detention. This application for bail is submitted in such circumstances.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. According to him, the allegations raised against the petitioner are highly improbable. It is also pointed out that the incident occurred on 18.01.2023, and the matter was reported to the Police on 25.01.2023. Another glaring illegality highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that going by the remand report, the petitioner was taken into custody by the Police on 24.01.2023, whereas the FIR was registered only on 25.01.2023.
4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would seriously oppose the aforesaid contentions. It is pointed out that, in the FIS and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 B.A.No.1380/2023 4 Cr.P.C., a clear description of the sexual assault allegedly committed by the petitioner has been mentioned. It is pointed out that even though the identity of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIS, the features of the persons concerned were explicitly mentioned by the victim. Later, the petitioner was identified, and the arrest was made in such circumstances. It is further pointed out that the investigation is now in progress, and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the smooth conduct of the same.
5. I have gone through the records and heard the contentions from both sides. One of the crucial contentions raised by the petitioner is with respect to the discrepancy in the date on which the petitioner was taken into custody. The specific case of the petitioner is that, going by the remand report, the petitioner was taken into custody on 24.01.2023, whereas FIR was registered on 25.01.2023. However, on going through the remand report, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it can be seen that the petitioner was taken into custody on 24.01.2023, as he was found in suspicious circumstances in the said locality. While he was in custody, the FIR was registered, and the petitioner was B.A.No.1380/2023 5 identified as the person involved in the crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not taken into custody in connection with this case. However, this contention cannot be considered in the light of the contents of the remand report. At the moment, I have no reasons to disbelieve the same. As far as the genuineness of the allegations raised against the petitioner is concerned, it is a matter of investigation. On going through the contents of the FIS and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it can be seen that, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, it contains a clear description of the sexual assaults allegedly committed by the petitioner. It is also to be noted that it is not a single instance. It is evident that, besides the incident that occurred in the morning, the same thing was allegedly repeated in the evening while the victim returned from school. As per the victim's statement, the petitioner was waiting for the school bus to arrive at the bus stop in the evening.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that even as per the statement of the victim, the incident occurred in a public place adjacent to a busy road with various buildings and B.A.No.1380/2023 6 institutions functioning. However, I am of the view that, going by the statement of the victim, she was dragged to a nearby property, where a building under construction was situated. The victim, a girl aged 15 years, has given a clear description of the assaults, and from the materials before me, I am unable to find any motive for such a victim to make false stories against the petitioner. It appears that the victim also had no previous acquaintance with the petitioner. Moreover, this is a matter under investigation, and at this juncture, the aforesaid contention cannot be considered.
Thus, taking into account all the relevant aspects, the nature of the allegations and the gravity thereof, I am of the view that it is not proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Considering the entire materials placed on record, I do not find this as a fit case in which powers of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this case, and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/25.2.23 B.A.No.1380/2023 7 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1380/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.02.2023 PREFERRED BY THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM CITY