Kerala High Court
Jose vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 1181 of 2019
CRIME NO. 784/2018 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
==================
PETITIONER/S:
JOSE,AGED 70 YEARS,PUTHUSSERY VEEDU
CHOTTUPARA POST, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031(CRIME NO.784/2018 OF
VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIYYUR POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT-
685552(CRIME NO.784/2018 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
DISTRICT).
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 1181 of 2019 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
========================
B.A.No.1181 of 2019
==========================
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.784 of 2018 of Viyyur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376 A & B, 376(2)(n), 506(i)IPC read with Section 6 read with Section 5(l)(m)(n), 10 read with Section 9(l)(m)(n) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) on the basis of the statement recorded from a minor victim girl aged 5 years. According to the minor victim girl, she was studying in UKG and when her parents went for employment they used to entrust the child in the house of the petitioner in the morning and take her back at 8 pm. The child alleged that while she was alone in the house, the petitioner sexually abused her and thereby committed the offences. On the basis of the above statement of the minor victim child, the crime has been registered. The petitioner would point out that he is aged about 80 years and that he has crossed the age of active sexual life and it is preposterous to arrest the petitioner at this age alleging the above offences. According to him, the child was also entrusted Bail Appl..No. 1181 of 2019 3 to other houses and if at all there is any truth in her allegations the incident so happened may be in some other houses not in the house of the petitioner. It is stated that the child's mother is working as a Nurse abroad and her father is working as a Conductor and he is used to entrust the child with the petitioner and his wife. When some strange behaviour of the child was noted, they had pointed out those aspects to the child's father, who has got annoyed and raised the above allegations. Further it is stated that the complaint was made through the Child Welfare Committee and none of the mandatory procedures for filtering the complaints of minor children as laid down in decision of this Court as in Baby v. State of Kerala and Another [2013(4)KHC 680 = 2013(4)KLT 15] has been followed and the crime has been automatically registered merely on the report of the Child Welfare Committee, it is illegal and improper and that the child has to be subjected to expert analysis of a Child Clinical Psychologist and that the petitioner is fully prepared to co-operate with the investigation and even though to undergo any potency test, and that this Court may direct to grant anticipatory bail in the facts of this case.
2. The plea for anticipatory bail has been seriously opposed Bail Appl..No. 1181 of 2019 4 by the Public Prosecutor.
3. Having regard to the grave and serious nature of the crime alleged against the petitioner as well as the nature of the allegations raised against him and as the investigation is not complete, this Court is of the view that it may not be right and proper for this Court to exercise its discretion so as to consider the plea of the petitioner for granting pre-arrest bail. The petitioner submits that he shall surrender before the investigating officer concerned and that this Court may direct that the bail application of the petitioner may be considered by the court below concerned on the same day itself.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. As the investigation is not complete, it may not be right for this Court to consider those aspects of the matter.
In that view of the matter, it is ordered that this application stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE sd