Kerala High Court
C K Muhammed Jaseer vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.5473 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 630/2020 DATED 13-08-2020 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY
CRIME NO.630/2020 OF Mattannur Police Station , Kannur
PETITIONER/S:
C K MUHAMMED JASEER
AGED 20 YEARS,
KOLLANKANDY HOUSE, PARIYARAM,
KOLARI P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670702.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.ANOOP
SRI.K.V.SREERAJ
SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl.No.5473 OF 2020
2
O R D E R
Dated this the 22nd day of September 2020 This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.630/2020 of Mattannur Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 388 and 506(i) of the I.P.C. and under Section 4 read with Section 3(c) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The applicant was arrested on 24.07.2020 and he seeks regular bail.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.06.2020, the applicant had allegedly committed unnatural offence and penetrative sexual assault on the victim, who is a 13 year old boy. The victim's father had allegedly contacted the Childline Centre and subsequently the matter was informed to the Police, in consequence of which the crime was registered. It is alleged that the incident took place in a toilet inside the compound of a hotel at a place called "19 th Mile". The applicant states that he is innocent, he has no other criminal antecedents and he is only 20 year old Bail Appl.No.5473 OF 2020 3 and that the entire allegations are false. It is stated that a similar incident had allegedly taken place on 19.06.2020 concerning the very same victim and he was allegedly sexually assaulted by a person named Siraj and in consequence of which Crime No.623/2020 as lodged against the said Siraj on 26.06.2020 in Mattannur Police Station. Even then, crime against the applicant was not registered and ultimately it was registered only on 02.07.2020. The delay, according to the applicant is very crucial. It is stated that the applicant is the leader of a youth organization and because of the action taken against him for registering the crime against Siraj, the applicant has been deliberately implicated in this crime also. He was arrested on 24.07.2020 and has been in custody for about 58 days, and therefore, seeks regular bail.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed application for bail stating that the applicant has committed a heinous crime attracting the offence under the I.P.C. and also for offences under Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act. It is stated that the incident which took place on 19.06.2020 involving the accused- Bail Appl.No.5473 OF 2020 4 Siraj and the present incident which took place on 20.06.2020, were in two different places. But in both these cases, the victim was sexually abused. In connection with Crime No.623/2020 registered against Siraj, the statement of the victim was recorded by the Magistrate on 27.06.2020 and in that statement the victim revealed the involvement of Siraj in committing the offence on 19.06.2020 and also revealed the involvement of the applicant herein in another similar offence, which occurred on the successive date. The investigating officer got a copy of the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. from the Magistrate's Court on 02.07.2020 and immediately this crime was registered. Hence it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the delay is not very crucial.
6. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that Siraj, the accused in Crime No.623/2020 of Mattannur Police Station, had approached this Court for anticipatory bail and the same was rejected by this Court. But the accused in that crime has not been apprehended.
It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in case the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility that the victim and his family Bail Appl.No.5473 OF 2020 5 members may be threatened. There is also an offence under Section 506(i) of the I.P.C. registered against the applicant and it is because the applicant had put the victim to fear of death and also causing hurt to his family members and that the victim had not come forward with a complaint against the applicant. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that the release of the applicant at this stage would be detrimental to the investigation and also to the victim and his entire family. Moreover, it is submitted that investigation is complete and final report has already been filed.
7. The applicant's contention that he has no criminal antecedents may not make a weigh in his favour, particularly for the reason that the applicant had intimidated the victim from disclosing the alleged occurrence. The incident did not take place in the very same place and the attempt made by the applicant to suggest that the actual incident of sexually abusing the victim had taken place on 19.06.2020 and that the assailant was Siraj and with other political motives, the applicant has been falsely implicated as an accused. This submission cannot be accepted for the reason that in the confession statement allegedly given by the victim on 27.06.2020 before the Magistrate he Bail Appl.No.5473 OF 2020 6 has clearly revealed the involvement of the applicant in this crime. The fact is that both the crimes took place on consecutive days. The fact that the applicant had intimidated the victim and that subsequently the relatives of the applicant had also intimidated the family members of the victim also would go a long way in refusing bail to the applicant.
In the result, I find that the applicant, who is accused of committing a very heinous crime against a child, is not entitled to any leniency, and therefore, the application is dismissed. The learned designated Court is directed to expedite the trial and in case there is any delay in concluding the trial because of the pandemic situation, the applicant is given the liberty to approach the jurisdictional court again for bail afresh.
Sd/-
dkr ASHOK MENON
JUDGE