ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has now been arrayed as accused No. 2 among the two accused in the instant Crime No. 2507/2019 of Nemom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, in which presently the offences alleged therein are those punishable under Secs. 109, 317 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Initially, the abovesaid Crime No. 2507/2019 of Nemom Police Station was registered under Sec. 57 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 as a "person missing case", on the basis of the First Information Statement/complaint given by the husband of A-1 that A-1 is found missing from the house since 19.10.2019. The police after investigation could trace out that A-1 was with A-2, who was stated to be her lover and according to the police, A-1 had eloped with A-2, etc. Based on the investigation so conducted, the Investigating Officer has altered the offence as those mentioned hereinabove and A-1 and the petitioner herein (A-2) have been arrayed as the two accused therein.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that A-1 is a married lady aged 24 years, who is having two children (aged 5½ years and 4½ years) and that she is married to the first informant Gireesh and that she developed an illicit love affair with A-2 and that at the instigation of A-2, A-1 had eloped with him and for that purpose, she had left her two children with her brother, etc. It appears that later, A-1's husband Gireesh has committed suicide and he has died on 29.10.2019. Both the accused persons have been arrested on 27.10.2019. The petitioner herein (A-2) after his remand, has been under detention since then.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner herein (A-2) was never aware that A-1 was a married lady and further that he has not in any manner instigated her to abandon the children or to in any manner commit the offence as per Sec. 317 of the IPC or the alleged offences as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Further it is pointed out that even going by the admitted prosecution allegations, the necessary ingredients as per Sec. 317 of the IPC is not made out, inasmuch as the specific case in the FIS is to the effect that A-1 had left her two minor children with her brother and such allegation cannot be said to fulfil the necessary intention of A-1 permanently abandoning the care and custody of the children. Further that, since the petitioner was not having knowledge that A-1 was married, etc., he cannot be mulcted with the culpability of the offences as per Secs. 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Lastly it is urged that as the petitioner has already suffered detention for the last 25 days, his continued detention may not be necessary, taking into account the nature of allegations in this case and that this Court may order to release him on regular bail, subject to stringent conditions.