UMMER Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.318/2016 of the Vazhakkad Police Station, registered under Sections 377 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9(k) r/w 10 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

(2.) The victim of offence in this case is said to be a boy aged 17 years, having some mental retardation. The petitioners 1 and 2 are senior citizens; one aged 65 years, and the other aged 70 years. The 3rd petitioner is a lady aged 58 years. The prosecution case appears to be that these three petitioners took the victim to the house of the third petitioner and subjected the victim to some sort of sexual abuse.

(3.) On a perusal of the materials I find something suspicious regarding the complaint in this case. Finding that the FIR does not have any definite and solid materials, the police was directed to file a report. Now there is an honest report by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vazhakkad, regarding the facts alleged and regarding his own doubt. On a perusal of the materials I find something suspicious. It is not known from where the Child Welfare Committee received complaint, alleging sexual abuse, or who intimated them about the alleged incident. It appears that without making any enquiry and without ascertaining the truth of the allegations, the Child Welfare Committee immediately informed the police. Rightly, the police did not register the FIR immediately. The police proceeded to collect some materials, verifying the truth and genuineness of the allegations received by the Child Welfare Committee. Anyway, after some time the statement of the victim was recorded with the aid of an interpreter and thereafter the FIR was registered. The report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police shows that during investigation the witnesses gave inconsistent versions, and at one stage the police even found that the complaint does not have any basis. Anyway, investigation again proceeded and even now the police is not certain or definite regarding the source of information or the genuineness of the complaint. I find that the police report is really honest and there is really something to doubt about the information received by the Child Welfare Committee, which led to the registration of the FIR. I feel it inappropriate to deny bail to the petitioners in the above circumstances. There is something suspicious, and really artificial. Interrogation of the petitioners in custody is not felt necessary in the above circumstances.