Chandran K.R vs State Of Kerala

The petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.182 of 2019 Vadakkekara Police Station (which is the subject matter of B.A No.2945/2019) as well as Crime No.184 of 2019 of the same Police Station (which is the subject matter of B.A No.2953/2019) and Crime No.183 of 2019 of the same Police Station (which is the subject matter of B.A.No. 2955/2019).

The offences registered against the petitioner in Crime No.182 of 2019, in relation to B.A.No.2945/2019 are those under Secs.10, 9(l), 9(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Secs.354A(1)(i) and 509 of the IPC. The offences alleged against the petitioner in Crime No.184 of 2019, in relation to B.A.No.2953/2019 are those under Secs.10 & 9(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 and Secs.354A(i)(i) and 509 of IPC. Offences alleged against the petitioner in relation to Crime No.183 of 2019, in relation to B.A No.2955/2019, are those under Secs.10, 9(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 and Secs.354 A(1)(i) & 509 of the IPC.

The brief of the allegations in relation to B.A.No.2953/2019 is that the petitioner had sexually abused the minor victim girl of 13 years, while she was studying in 7th Std. and that when the victim had gone to his shop for purchasing articles as requested by her parents, the accused, the shop keeper called her near him and then had caught her chest and she had to shrugg off and run away and such conduct was repeated by him on two other occasions. The above said crime has disclosed about year after the date of incident.

The allegation in B.A.No.2955/2019 is that the petitioner had sexually harassed and abused the minor victim girl aged 11 years when she was studying in Std. 5 and that he had embraced her in the shop of the petitioner and she had run away from there in fear.

The allegation in B.A.No.2945/2019 is that the petitioner had embraced the minor victim girl in that case, aged about 11 years and had kissed on her cheeks and had touched on her chest and back side, etc., when she had came to his shop. It appears that the allegations were disclosed by these minor victim girls to their respective mothers, which were later led to its disclosure and registration of the crime.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the allegations have been falsely foisted on the petitioner and further that no serious allegations of penetrative sexual assault are raised in these cases. Further that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered before the court on 16.03.2019 and that his continued detention is not necessary etc.

The learned Prosecutor submits that the investigation has not so far been completed and that the offences registered against the petitioner are serious and that since investigation is not completed, there is all possibility that the petitioner may influence the minor victim girl and their family members, etc.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that investigation has not so far been completed. It is not now known to this Court as to why the investigation has not diligently and expeditiously finalised the investigation. Going by the facts and circumstances of this case, the non-finalisation of the investigation by itself cannot be the main ground for refusal of bail in this case.

Having heard both sides, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious, since there are no allegations of penetrative sexual assault and as the petitioners have already been under detention for the last 66 days, the continued detention of the petitioner is not really called for. The learned Prosecutor has pointed out that the petitioner is now accused in 3 similar crimes and the victims are under teenaged girls and there is high likelihood of the petitioner influencing and intimidating the minor victim girls and it will affect not only the integrity of the investigation but also the outcome of the trial. The said apprehension raised by the prosecution cannot be simply brushed aside. However, the said apprehension raised by the prosecution would be subserved by incorporating stringent condition that the petitioner shall not reside anywhere near the territorial limits of the District where the minor victim girls are residing. It is now apprised to this Court by Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is residing at Kodungallur, Thrissur District and that the minor victim girls are residing in North Paravur, Ernakulam District and alleged incidents had happened at a time when the petitioner was managing the affairs of the shop of his son-in-law at North Paravur in Ernakulam District.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail in these 3 cases on executing separate bonds in each of these 3 cases and on furnishing 2 solvent sureties each in these cases to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions.

(i). The petitioner will report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays for a period of 3 months. Thereafter the petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer as and when directed by him.

(ii). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses; nor shall tamper with the evidence.

(iii). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

(iv) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the limits of Ernakulam District within whose limits the minor victim girls are residing, until the conclusion of the trial, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer in these cases or in any other crimes and for attending to the courts in connection with these cases or any other cases or for contacting his advocate/lawyer, etc.

(v) However, if there is any emergent and genuine reasons for the petitioner to go to that District, then he may do so only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.

In case of violation of 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 the law.

With these observations and directions, the above Application stands disposed of.