~~~~~~ Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1131/2014 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur District, for offences under Sections 371 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The said crime was registered on 19.6.2014. Subsequently, offences arising under Section 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has also been added by the police authorities on 19.7.2014. Apprehending arrest in the aforementioned crime, the petitioner herein has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the applicant/the petitioner herein had caught hold of the minor de facto complainant at his office with sexual interest and that, therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforementioned offences. The petitioner contends that the de facto complainant is now aged 21 years as evident by Annexure-D affidavit sworn to by the father of the de facto complainant. The Public Prosecutor would submit that as per the version given by the de facto complainant's mother that she is aged only 17 years and that she is a minor as per the information collected by the investigating agency. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the allegations against the petitioner under Section 371 of the IPC and Sections 23 and 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is without any factual foundation and that the petitioner is duly licensed as per Annexure-B in terms of the provisions of 8(i) of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service Act, 1979 and that the petitioner has also the necessary registration as evident by Annexure-C issued by the competent Labour Authorities of the Government of Kerala.
3. Heard Sri. P.Vijaya Bhanu, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri. Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail as prayed for in this application.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State authorities, I am inclined to take the view that the application for anticipatory bail can be allowed subject to conditions.
5. In the result, there will be an order that in the event of the petitioner being arrested in connection with Crime No.1131/2014 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur District, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned in the aforementioned crime and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. If the petitioner is not the holder of a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport for travel abroad, he is free to approach the concerned court for the release of the same and in case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merit and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking sufficient guidance from the principles laid down by this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala [2009(2) KLT 712], notwithstanding the aforementioned condition imposed by this Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1131/2014 of Koratty Police Station between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. on every alternate Sundays.
(iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence similar or graver in nature.
and iv) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or interfere with the smooth conduct of the investigation in any manner or tamper or attempt to tamper the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioner violates any of the above said conditions, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application for anticipatory bail stands allowed on the above terms.
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
ps/7/10/2014 //True copy// PA to Judge