Kerala High CourtAshok vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2017Author:K.Abraham MathewBench:K.Abraham MathewIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

              TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/20TH POUSHA, 1938

                                          Bail Appl..No. 13 of 2017 ()
                                               -----------------------------
   CRIME NO. 942/2016 OF MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
                                                           ......


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------

                     ASHOK, AGED 31 YEARS,
                    S/O. V.M. THANKACHAN
                    WARYAMATTAM HOUSE, LEYAM,
                    THALUNKAL ESTATE BHAGOM, THALUNKAL P.O.,
                    MUNDAKKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.


                     BY ADVS.SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
                                 SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS
                                 SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------------

        1.           STATE OF KERALA,
                     REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                     HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

        2.           SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE-MUNDAKKAYAM,
                     MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 001.


                     BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI.


                    THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
                    ON 10-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
                    FOLLOWING:

rs.



                      K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                           B.A.No.13 of 2017
                   -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 10th day of January, 2017

                                  ORDERPetition filed under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C.2.    Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.942 of 2016 of

Mundakkayam Police Station registered for the offences underSections 354A(1)of the IPC andSection 11(iii)(vi)r/wSection 12of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The victim is his cousin.             He has been in custody since

26.12.2016. The learned counsel submits that the allegations are

false and the petitioner may be granted bail.4.    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor.5.  The victim is now aged 16 years. The allegation in the

F.I.Statement is that the petitioner had sexually abused her since

she was 4th standard student. A copy of her statement given

underSection 164(5)of the Cr.P.C. has been handed over to me

for perusal. In that statement, she has disowned her statement to

the police. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant the

prayer of the petitioner.In the result, this Bail Application is allowed.B.A.No.13 of 2017                    2i.    The petitioner shall be released on bail on his

              executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five

              thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the

              like sum to the satisfaction of the lower court

              concerned.ii.   He shall not contact or communicate with the victim

              directly or indirectly.iii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the

              witnesses, nor shall he get himself involved in any other

              criminal case.iv. He shall surrender his passport before the lower court

              concerned or if he does not have one he shall file an

              affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

        v.    He shall not leave India without the previous permission

              of the court of enquiry or trial court, as the case may

              be.vi.    He shall appear before the investigating officer for

              interrogation if he is so required by him in writing.

      In case of violation, the lower court concerned is empowered to

cancel the bail in accordance with the law.Sd/-K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE
ln

                                                    /True copy/

                                                    P.A. to Judge