SARATH @ CHANDRU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 among the four accused in the instant Crime No.519/2019 of Kulathupuzha Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.354, 354A and 34 of the IPC and Secs.11(i) and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The abovesaid crime has been registered on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant who is the mother of the minor victim girl on 18.4.2019 at about 8 pm, in respect of the alleged incident which has happened on 14.4.2019 at about 2 pm.

(2.) The brief of the prosecution case is that, the petitioner herein (A1) along with other accused persons (A2 to A4) on 14.4.2019 at about 2 pm had uttered sexually coloured remarks to the minor victim girl aged 13 years and to her mother (lady defact complainant herein) and thereafter one of the accused by name "Sunil" had removed his dhothi and tied it on his head and then had exhibited his private parts to the minor victim girl, etc. The petitioner herein (A1) had surrendered on 23.10.2019 and after his remand, has been under detention since then.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated, and further that earlier the petitioner herein was on friendly terms with the victim's father (lady defacto complainant's husband) and later due to some difference of opinion he had quarreled with the petitioner and it is only out of that animosity that the abovesaid false allegations have been made, and further that the incident is said to have happened on 14.4.2019 at about 2 pm, whereas the FIS and crime has been lodged only as late as on 18.4.2019 at about 8 pm, and no credible explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution to explain the long delay in the lodging of case, which would fatally vitiate the impugned criminal proceedings as it affects the very believability and credibility of the prosecution case. Further it is pointed out that the main allegation of exhibiting nudity has been made by the defacto complainant in her FIS as against the accused person by name "Sunil" and not against the petitioner herein, who is accused No.1 "Sarath @ Chandru". Further that, the Special Sessions Court while rejecting the bail plea of the petitioner as per Anx.B order dated 13.11.2019 has proceeded on the mistaken factual assumption as if the main allegation of exhibiting nudity was allegedly done by all the four accused persons. It is further urged that as the petitioner has already suffered detention since the last 30 days, this Court may order to release him on regular bail as his further detention may not be necessary, and that the petitioner is prepared to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.