Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By Public ... on 5 August, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.4707 OF 2020
CRIME NO.681/2020 OF Kareelakulangara Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER:
ANILKUMAR
MUNDIYIL HOUSE,
PATHIYOOR, KAREELAKULANGARA
PIN690508
BY ADV. SRI.SANIL JOSE
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN 682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4709/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.4707/2020 & 4709/2020 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.4709 OF 2020
CRIME NO.680/2020 OF Kareelakulangara Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER:
ANILKUMAR
MUNDIYIL HOUSE,
KEERIKKAD P.O., PATHIYOOR,
KAREELAKULANGARA.
ALAPPUZHA, PIN 690508
BY ADV. SRI.SANIL JOSE
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031
SRI.AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4707/2020, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.4707/2020 & 4709/2020 3
ORDER
Dated this the 5th day of August 2020 These Bail Applications are filed by the same person under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime Nos.680 of 2020 and 681 of 2020 of Kareelakulangara Police Station. The above cases are registered against the petitioners under Sections 7, 8 9l, 9n, 10, 11(i) and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 354A, 354A(1)(ii), 354A(1)(iv), 506 and 509 IPC. In both these cases, the victims are the daughters of the petitioner. Since these Bail Applications are filed by the same person and the allegations against the petitioner are almost same, I am disposing these Bail Applications by a common order.
3. The victims in these cases are the daughters of the petitioner. The victim girls are aged 14 and 17. The victim girls uniformly says that their father sexually assaulted them. The Public Prosecutor made available the F.I.Statements given by B.A.Nos.4707/2020 & 4709/2020 4 these girls. Therefore, based on the statement of the two daughters, two separate crimes are registered as Crime Nos.680 of 2020 and 681 of 2020.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not correct. Along with the Bail Applications, Annexure II, the affidavit of the mother of the victim girl, is produced in which it is stated that the children gave such statement because of some misunderstanding. It is stated in the affidavit that the children gave such statements at the instance of her mother and her sister, who are having some animosity to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 7.7.2020 onwards. He is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the children of the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature and he B.A.Nos.4707/2020 & 4709/2020 5 committed very serious offences. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Applications.
7. As I stated earlier, I perused the statement of the victim girls in this case based on which the FIR is registered. The allegations by the victim girls against their own father are very serious. No court can shut its eyes to the statements given by these victim girls while considering a Bail Application. I made these observations only for the purpose of considering these Bail Applications. The investigation of the case is going on. The Investigating Officer has to decide whether the allegation that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case is correct or not. While considering the Bail Applications, the statement of the victim girls cannot be ignored. If this petitioner is released on bail by a court of law ignoring the statement of the two minor daughters, that will give a wrong signal to the Society. The petitioner is not entitled orders Section 439 Cr.P.C.
8. Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P v Central Bureau of B.A.Nos.4707/2020 & 4709/2020 6 Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272). The apex court held that, the following factors are to the taken into consideration while considering the application for bail.
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
(iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.
It is true that there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant B.A.Nos.4707/2020 & 4709/2020 7 or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that case. In the light of the general principles laid down in the above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that these are not fit cases in which the petitioner can be released on bail. Hence these Bail Applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE csl