Petitioner who was accused of committing offense under Sec 10 read with 9(l) of POCSO Act was granted bail as final report is submitted and his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of investigation and was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH in the case of MOIDEEN P.P. v. STATE OF KERALA (BAIL APPL. NO. 2700 OF 2022) on 19th April, 2022.
Brief facts as per the prosecution is that during the period from 1.9.2021, the petitioner held the penis of the minor victim boy and thus committed the offences.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present cases. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner
The Court held that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 27.12.2021 and in view of the nature of the crime and the stage of investigation, there is no any reason to hold the continued detention of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation. The investigation is over and the final report has already been filed. For all these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on conditions- The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court in each case, the petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail, shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation and the petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh.