SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
XXX XXX & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 7673 of 2022
Decided On : 24-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Nireesh Mathew.
For the Respondent: Smt. M.K. Pushpalatha, Public Prosecutor.

Point of Law : Section 2(a) of Cr.P.C. defines bailable offence as "an offence which is shown as bailable in First Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for time being in force."

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376(2)(n) and 376AB - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 3(b), 3(d), 6(1), 5(f), 5(l), 5(m), 21 - Grant of bail - Punishment of Rape - Punishment for failure to report or record a case - Whether offence under section 21 of the POCSO Act is bailable or not - A perusal of provisions of POCSO Act reveals that statute does not, by itself, declare section 21 to be a non-bailable offence - When there is no reference in statute treating a particular offence as bailable or non-bailable, reliance has to be placed on Schedule to Cr.P.C. (Para 12)

Finding of the Court :

It is also elementary that an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable when the offence is bailable. In cases where the offence alleged is only bailable, bail is a right, and it cannot be denied - Application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable as an accused, if arrested for a bailable offence, the investigating officer has to mandatorily release him on bail.

Result : Bail application dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Section 21 of the POCSO Act provides punishment for failure to report or record a offence, with imprisonment up to six months or one year (!) . - Section 2(a) of Cr.P.C. defines a bailable offence as one shown as bailable in the First Schedule or made bailable by any other law (!) . - The POCSO Act does not itself declare section 21 as non-bailable; therefore, the classification depends on the punishment under the Cr.P.C. First Schedule (!) . - Since section 21 POCSO attracts imprisonment less than three years or fine only, the offence is bailable and non-cognizable (!) . - An application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable when the offence is bailable (!) . - In a bailable offence, bail is a right and cannot be denied; the investigating officer must mandatorily release the accused on bail (!) . - The court dismissed the bail application because the alleged offence is only bailable (!) .

What is the bailable status of the offence under section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012?

How to determine whether an offence is bailable or non-bailable when the statute is silent?

What is the consequence for an accused person when the offence is bailable?


ORDER :

Is section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 bailable or non-bailable? The said question arises for consideration in this application for anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioners are accused 2 to 4 in Crime No.425 of 2022 of Cheruthuruthi Police Station. Initially, there was only one accused against whom offences punishable under sections 376(2)(n) and 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, apart from sections 4, 3(b), 3(d), 6(1), 5(f), 5(l) and 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act') are alleged. Later, an additional report was filed, arraying petitioners as accused 2 to 4, after including section 21 of the POCSO Act as committed by them

3. Prosecution alleges that in the month of May 2022, the first accused took the victim, aged 9 years, to the bathroom of a Yathimkhana, and sexually assaulted the minor girl by sucking and inserting his finger into her private parts and repeated the offensive conduct on many days. Petitioners are alleged to have failed to report the offence even after becoming aware of the said offensive conduct.

4. Sri. Nireesh Mathew learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the prosecution allegation against petitioners herein does not make out any offence at all, as they have no involvement in the main offences alleged. The learned counsel also pointed out that petitioners are roped in as accused only under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, on an assumption that they were aware of the incident of sexual exploitation committed by the first accused and that they failed to intimate the police. According to the learned Counsel, petitioners were unaware of the incident and the moment they became aware of it, they acted in accordance with law. The learned counsel further submitted that, even though the offence under section 21 of the POCSO Act is a bailable offence, the police are proceeding to initiate steps to arrest the petitioners and therefore, they apprehend arrest in the crime.

5. Smt. M.K. Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the grant of bail, contended that the petitioners are alleged to have committed a serious offence since they failed to intimate the incident of rape even after it came to their knowledge and, therefore, custodial interrogation is essential.

6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the statement given by the victim.

7. According to the victim, the first accused had sexually assaulted her, and on hearing her cries, accused 2 to 4 came over and tried to console her. Later, accused 2 to 4 had sent away the first accused from the Yathimkhana but failed to report the crime to the police.

8. On a reading of the prosecution case, it is evident that the investigating officer does not have a case that accused 2 to 4 had either committed any sexual assault or even abetted the offence committed by the first accused. Petitioners are alleged to have committed only the offence under section 21 of the POCSO Act. The said section makes the failure to report an offence punishable with imprisonment upto six months or if the person is in charge of an institution or company, imprisonment upto one year.

9. Recently, the Supreme Court had, in State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Dr. Maroti s/o Kashinath Pimpalkar (2022 Livelaw (SC) 898) held that the offence under section 21 of the POCSO Act is a very serious offence. Relying upon the decision in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 5 SCC 546)] it was observed that “The non-reporting of the crime by anybody, after having come to know that a minor child below the age of 18 years was subjected to any sexual assault, is a serious crime and by not reporting, they are screening the offenders from legal punishment and hence be held liable under the ordinary crimina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top