XX XX XX XX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.530/2023 of Edakkara Police Station, Malappuram alleging commission of offences under Ss. 376(2) (n), 376(2)(f), 376(AB) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) r/w Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The allegation against the petitioner is that on 13/5/2022 and on an earlier occasion, the petitioner, who is the elder brother of the victim girl, [aged 13 years], had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim and has also subjected her to physical assault. The petitioner, who is 19 years old, was arrested on 23/5/2023 and has been in custody from that date. The investigation has been completed, and the final report has already been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner was addicted to drugs and used to exhibit violent behaviour at home, and in order to keep him in custody for some time, the family was advised to implicate him in the case, and therefore, the victim was compelled to give a statement implicating the petitioner. The learned counsel also pointed out that the victim is now lodged in a shelter home at Manjeri, and she had even scribbled a note to her mother asking her to take her back from the shelter home and also expressing regret for having implicated her elder brother (petitioner/accused) by accusing him of having committed serious offences. It is submitted that since the investigation has been completed and the final report has been filed, the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the facts and circumstances of the case and would submit that the investigation revealed that the allegations raised against the petitioner were true, and therefore, a final report was filed in Court implicating the petitioner. It is submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it might not be conducive to grant bail to the petitioner as there is every chance that the victim may be influenced or intimidated if the petitioner is granted bail, especially since the victim and the petitioner normally live under the same roof.