Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9517/2019 of P.P.BHASKARAN Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 Bail Appl..No.9517 OF 2019 CRIME NO.582/2019 OF Manjeri Police Station , Malappuram PETITIONER/S: P.P.BHASKARAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O. CHOYI, RETIRED JOINT LABOUR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.9517 OF 2019
CRIME NO.582/2019 OF Manjeri Police Station , Malappuram PETITIONER/S:
P.P.BHASKARANAGED 60 YEARSS/O. CHOYI, RETIRED JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, RESIDING AT AMBALAPPADI, POST PAYYANAD-676 122, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
RESPONDENT/S:
BY ADVS.SRI.T.ASAFALISMT.LALIZA.T.Y.
STATE OF KERALA(THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANJERI POLICE STATION), REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
BY SMT.SREEJA.V., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Dated this the 31st day of December 2019
The petitioner is the accused in CrimeNo.582/2019 of Manjeri Police Station, MalappuramDistrict, for having allegedly committed the offencespunishable under Section 363 of IPC and Sections 91r/w 10 of the Protection of Children from SexualOffence Act, 2012 (POCSO).
2. The prosecution case is brief in that between01.06.2019 and 30.11.2019, the petitioner had kidnapped the minor boy, aged 12 taken him to hishouse without his parents knowledge and consents andthereafter made him hold his sexual organ and therebycommitted the offence under the POCSO Act. It isfurther stated that the petitioner was a retiredgovernment servant. To attract offence under Section9 it is essential that the petitioner should be apolice officer or a public servant in service. Thevery fact that he had retired from service indicatesthat Section 9 is not attracted. Even going by theallegations as recorded by the police of the victim an offence under Section 7 alone would be attracted.The victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C hasnot yet been recorded. I wonder why the investigatingofficer is waiting to get the statement of the childrecorded. However, even going by the allegations asgiven by the statement of the child the offences areserious in nature, it cannot be ignored. Therefore,the petitioner may not be entitled for a pre-arrestbail at this stage. 3.The petitioner is therefore, directed to surrender before the investigating officer within twoweeks and on his so doing, and on completion of theinterrogation, he shall be produced before thejurisdictional Court as contemplated under law and onhis filing a bail application before the Court, theCourt shall consider the bail application, asexpeditiously as possible, and preferable on the samedate, keeping in view, the observations made upon.
Sd/-
SMA
ASHOK MENONJUDGE