IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6095 of 2011() ----------------------------- CMP.3726/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM CRIME NO.690/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------- ABDUL KALAM,AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.ABDUL RASAK, NEDIYAVILA VEEDU,KARIKODE CHERRY,TKM.P.O, VIKAS NAGAR 135,KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.VINAYAKUMAR SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6095 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of August, 2011 ORDER The various incidents narrated by the three girls studying in 6th standard would shock the conscience of any person. The girls stated that they were sexually abused by a 60 year old man who was running a shop dealing with ornamental fish, birds, etc. 2. This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused in Crime No.690 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam District, who was arrested on 22/06/2011. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376, 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(xi) and 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner was arrested on 22/06/2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. 3. The First Information Statement was given by the Counselor in the School appointed by the Social Welfare Department. She stated in the F.I. Statement that on 14/06/2011 one girl studying in the 6th standard in the School was found missing in the afternoon session. The girl reached home in the Bail Appln.No.6095/2011 : 2 : evening. The mother of the girl reported the matter to the Principal. The Principal asked the Counselor to talk to the girl. All the necessary information was collected from the girl by the Counselor. She stated the shocking incidents to the Counselor. The mother of another girl, who came to the school to receive the lump sum grant, (which is given to the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes), was informed by the teacher that her daughter was found having money with her. The mother of the girl said to the teacher that no money was given to the girl. On making enquiries, the girl revealed the story. The petitioner was running the shop at Poonthalathazham. He deals with ornamental fish, birds, etc. The allegation is that he allured the girls by inviting them into his shop and showing the ornamental fish, birds, etc. After attracting them to the shop they were being paid Rs.10/-, Rs.20/-, etc., for purchasing toffees. The girls used to visit the shop off and on. Two of them would be directed to wait outside the shop and the petitioner used to take the other girl inside the shop and sexually abuse her. These atrocities were done to all the 3 girls and they were paid pittance for purchasing toffees. Bail Appln.No.6095/2011 : 3 : 4. The crime was originally registered under Section 511 of 376 of the Indian Penal Code, since it was doubtful whether rape was committed. On medical examination of one of the girls, it was found that she was subjected to sexual intercourse and she has having internal injury. It was also seen that the girl belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, Sections of offences were altered. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case is foisted against the petitioner and that the story put forward is unbelievable. The Senior Counsel referred to Annexure A-7, certificate of marriage and the wedding invitation card to show that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner was solemenized on 13th June, 2011 and therefore it was quite unbelievable that the petitioner sexually abused one of the girls on 14/06/2011. It is not necessary to decide the disputed question of fact in this Bail Application. Even assuming that the marriage of the daughter of petitioner took place on 13th June, 2011, that does not mean he did not open the shop on 14th June, 2011. It also does not mean that it was quite impossible for him to commit the offence on Bail Appln.No.6095/2011 : 4 : 14/06/2011. Even it is taken that on 14th June, 2011 no incident happened, the allegations would show that the petitioner was indulging himself in sexually abusing the girls for more than one year. When the sexual atrocities were commenced, the girls were studying only in the 5th standard. The atrocities continued through out the year and during the next year. The girls had not attained the age of puberty during those days. The petitioner is aged 60 years and the victims used to call him “Appooppan” (grandfather). 6. I do not find any ground to grant bail at this stage. The investigation is progressing. If bail is granted to the petitioner before final report is filed, it is most likely that he would try to intimidate and influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. The victim girls would be put to harassment and humiliation, if bail is granted to the petitioner. It is not at all proper to think of granting bail to the petitioner at any time before the final report is filed. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj