Kerala High Court
Sidhik vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
BAIL APPL.NO.8884 OF 2019
CRIME NO.1101/2019 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SIDHIK, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.KHADER, SHEFEEQ MANZIL,WARD NO.XI,
THANNEERMUKKUM PANCHAYATH, VAARANAM P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
B.A. No. 8884 of 2019
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner accused has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.1101/2019 of Muhamma Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.354A(1)(i)(ii) & 506(i) of the IPC and Secs.7 & 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The said crime has been registered on the basis of the FIS given by the minor victim girl aged 13 years on 22.10.2019 at about 7.35 pm, in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 20.10.2019 at about 3 pm.
2. The prosecution case in short is that, on 20.10.2019 when the minor victim girl aged 13 years involved in this case was playing with two other girl children who all are friends inside an autorickshaw belonging to the family of one of the girls, and that the autorickshaw was parked in the pathway outside the house of one of the girl child, and that the petitioner had come there and offered a toffee to the minor victim girl, which she rejected, and then he had touched her with his hands from her chest upto the B.A. No. 8884/2019 ..3..
region of her private part, etc. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 23.10.2019, and after his remand, has been under detention since then.
3. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless, and that similar allegation was made by one among the other girls who are said to have be in the autorickshaw for which Crime No.1097/2019 of Muhamma Police Station has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.354A(1)(i) of the IPC and Secs.9m & 10 of the POCSO Act, wherein the allegation was to the effect that the petitioner had touched the thigh of the said victim girl and the said incident was happened at about 3.30 pm on the same day.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the victim girl involved in the former crime has not in any manner described any of the details which are said to have happened in relation to the latter crime. So also the victim in the present latter crime has not given any description of the alleged incident which had happened in relation to the victim in the former crime. The specific case of the prosecution is that, the incidents in relation to both the crimes have occurred on the same B.A. No. 8884/2019 ..4..
day at different times. The absence of description of these incidents in relation to one case in the other case would also lead to great suspicions about the credibility and believability of the prosecution case.
5. Further that, the victim girl involved in this case has given statement to the police that immediately after the incident she had not disclosed the incident to her parents, and it was the victim girl involved in the former case who told the parents of the present victim girl about the incidents in relation to the present case, and only thereafter the parents of the present victim girl taken note of the incident,etc. It is pointed out by the petitioner's counsel that those aspects would also clearly pinpoint to the scenario that the allegations are primarily the product of embellishments and exaggerations of the said victim girl involved, and that there is strong possibility of false implication in this case, etc. Further that, this Court had already ordered the release of the petitioner in relation to his involvement in the former crime as per order dated 6.12.2019 in B.A.No. 8804/219. It is also urged by the petitioner's counsel that as the petitioner has already suffered detention in this case for the last 49 days, his continued B.A. No. 8884/2019 ..5..
incarceration is not necessary and he may be ordered to be released on regular bail.
6. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for regular bail and has pointed out that apart from the above two crimes registered in the year 2019, yet another crime was previously alleged against the petitioner for POCSO offences, including Secs.3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, in the year 2017. It is further pointed out that there is every possibility of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses, more particularly the minor victim girl and her family members if he is let out on bail.
7. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already suffered detention in this case for the last 49 days, and taking into account the nature of the allegations in this case, as well as on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner accused, this court is inclined to take the view that the further incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary, and he could be released on regular bail. As ordered by this Court in the order dated 6.12.2019 in B.A. No.8804/2019, a safeguard shall be ensured that, the petitioner shall not enter into B.A. No. 8884/2019 ..6..
or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the minor victim girl is residing or studying until the conclusion of trial process in this case, subject to certain exceptions which will be dealt with hereinafter. So also, the petitioner shall not get himself involved in any offence, more particularly, the offence of similar nature, and in case he is so involved, then the Investigating Officer will immediately conduct a summary enquiry in that regard and make necessary application along with the report, before the competent Special Court concerned for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner hereby. Upon which, the said Court stands hereby authorized to consider the said plea for cancellation of bail after hearing both sides and in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:-
B.A. No. 8884/2019
..7..
i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O. ) on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays, at any time between 9 am and 1 pm, for the next 6 months, and thereafter he will report before the I.O., as and when directed by the said officer.
ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation process and shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the victim, witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
iii. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail, more particularly, the offence of similar nature. In case the petitioner commits any offence of similar nature, then the Investigating Officer on coming to know about it, will immediately conduct appropriate summary enquiry and file necessary report, along with the application before the competent Special Court concerned for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner, and in that eventuality, the said Special Court will stand hereby authorized to consider the said plea for cancellation of the bail, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the learned Prosecutor and in accordance with law.
iv. The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near the residence or educational institution of the minor victim girl.
v. The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the minor victim girl is residing or studying, until the conclusion of trial process in this case, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Police in connection with the abovesaid crime or any other crimes or for attending any Courts in relation to this case or for contacting lawyer/advocate concerned.B.A. No. 8884/2019
..8..
vi. However, in case the petitioner has any genuine emergent and personal needs to visit the said area, he may do so but only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer.
In case, the petitioner violates 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 law.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG