Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29171
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
SUMEJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 10452 2022
M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, K.S.RAJESH
Bail may be granted when substantial evidence is lacking, despite the seriousness of the alleged crime.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 363; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 11 and 15 - The court granted bail considering the absence of substantial evidence against the petitioner, the nature of the alleged offences, and the lengthy custody period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is accused of kidnapping a 16-year-old girl and inducing her to share inappropriate photographs. He contends he is innocent and that the investigation has progressed sufficiently.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the lack of substantial evidence supporting the allegations against the petitioner and deemed his further detention unnecessary given the circumstances.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the seriousness of the alleged offences did not justify continued detention in light of the considerable progress of the investigation and lack of evidence.
Final Decision: The bail application is allowed with conditions.
ORDER
This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1557/2022 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and under Section 11 (II)(IV) & Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution allegation in brief is that, the accused induced the victim girl of 16 years who was studying in the 10th standard to send the photograph of her private part, after having acquaintance with her through instagram, and later directed the victim to come to Thampanoor Railway Station with a view to kidnap her from her lawful guardianship. Thereby the accused is said to have committed the said offences.
5. The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. The investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably and there is no reason or justification for his further detention.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of his interfering with the investigation in the event of his release on bail, this petition deserves only to be dismissed.
7. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.12.2022. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, further detention of the petitioner is unnecessary. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and
(iii) During the bail period, He shall not get involved in any offence.
In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.
