AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1570 of 2022 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station, Kottayam District, alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 354A(2) r/w Sections 354A(1)(i), 376(2)(n) and 354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 12 r/w Section 11(iv), Section 4(1) r/w Section 3(b), Section 6(1) r/w Section 5, Section 10 r/w Section 9(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The prosecution case is that, the accused sexually harassed the minor victim in the month of June and July of the year 2022 and again on 17.08.2022 and on 22.10.2022 inside a toilet and thereby committed the offences alleged.
Smt.Anu Krishna T.U, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and that the incidents as alleged had never occurred. It was further submitted that the petitioner is only 18 years in age and has been in custody since 22.10.2022. According to the learned counsel, even if the entire prosecution allegations are assumed to be true, still it can only make out a case of a consensual relationship between two youngsters, of which the male had just crossed the age of 18 while the victim girl is on the verge of attaining the age of majority. The learned counsel further submitted that the continued detention of the petitioner would mar his career and therefore taking note of the period of detention already undergone, he ought to be released on bail.
Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the accused is above 18 years while the victim is less than 18; thereby the allegations fall within the purview of the POCSO Act. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the legislature has kept a cut off limit of 18 years and the wisdom of the legislature in keeping such an age is not questioned at all and therefore, petitioner has committed a serious offence.
I have considered the rival contentions. An unfortunate event has been brought to the notice of this Court, the accused who is only 18 years of age, and the student of a school is alleged to have been caught inside a toilet with a girl of 17 ½ years in age. Even though the accused alleges that no offence had been committed by him, and that, even if the allegations are assumed to be true, it would only reveal a consensual relationship, I am of the view that, the Statute has not excluded such relationships from the purview of the Act. Though the Act intends to prevent and punish sexual abuse and exploitation of a child, a cut off age of 18 is prescribed. The said wisdom cannot be questioned in this bail application.
However, considering the young age of the petitioner and the period of detention already undergone from 22.10.2022, apart from the nature of allegations, I am of the view that no purpose would be served by the continued detention even though the investigation is still continuing.
Taking note of the entire circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I allow this application for regular bail on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.
(d) Petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of the Kaduthuruthy Police Station, till the filing of the final report.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
(g) Petitioner shall not interact with the victim.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.