SHYNU MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.2 among the two accused in the instant Crime No.1287/2017 of Pooyapally Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 363, 376, 377 and 34 of the IPC and Secs.3(a) r/w 16 r/w 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, on the basis of FIS given by the defacto complainant/first informant on 4.8.2017 in respect of the alleged incident which has happened on 4.4.2017 at about 11.30 am.

(2.) There are two accused persons in this case and two minor victim girls. The allegations in this case as made out in the FIS given by the one of the minor victim girl is that, the first informant minor victim girl aged 17 years and another minor victim girl aged 14 years had gone along with both the accused persons to a hotel on 4.4.2017 at about 11.30 am and there A1 had sexual intercourse with the first informant minor victim girl, and A2 had sexual intercourse with the second victim girl, and thereby the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences. It appears that A1 was arrested in this case on 5.8.2017 and thereafter remanded and later let out on regular bail as per Anx.A1 order dated 30.8.2017 rendered by this Court in B.A. No. 6185/2017 filed by the said accused No.1. Further, according to the prosecution the petitioner herein (A2) could not be apprehended as he gone abroad and he returned back only recently and has been arrested on 5.10.2019 and after his remand has been under detention since then.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner would urge that the abovesaid allegations are all false and baseless and that alleged incidents are said to have happened as early as on 4.4.2017, whereas the FIS and Crime has been lodged as late as on 4.8.2017 and that the prosecution has not given any explanation for the long delay in this regard and the long and unexplained delay would vitiate the entire criminal proceedings and would raise serious suspicions about the very believability and credibility of the prosecution story. Further that, there are no allegations made anywhere in the prosecution case, even remotely suggesting that the any of the accused persons have committed the offence of Sec.377 of the IPC (deals with carnal intercourse against the order of nature). Further it is stated that, the petitioner is a young man aged 28 years and that since he has suffered detention since 8.10.2019, his further detention may not be necessary more particularly accused No.1 was released on regular bail on completion of 25 days of remand.