IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6145 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1040/2011 OF HARBOUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S):ACCUSED ------------------------------ ABDUL KHADAR, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.KUTTIKOYA, ATHANACHAMMAD VEETTIL, KAVARATHI PANCHAYATH,LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.6145 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 O R D E R The accused in Crime No.1040 of 2011 of Harbour Police Station, Kochi City, seeks for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The alleged incident took place at about 7.30 P.M. on 13.7.2011. The petitioner was arrested on 14.7.2011. 4. The petitioner is working as a Head Constable in Lakshadweep Police Service. The prosecution case is the following : The petitioner was on duty in the ship M.V.Kavaratti on 13.7.2011. The ship was borne from Kalpeni Island to Kochi. BA 6145/2011 2 The de facto complainant, his wife and two children, aged 3 1/2 years and 1 1/2 years were on board the ship from Kalpeni Island. The purpose of their visit to Kochi was for the treatment of the elder son of the de facto complainant at Lakshmi Hospital, Ernakulam. The accused, who was on duty in the ship M.V.Kavaratti, is known to the de facto complainant. At about 6.30 P.M., on 13.7.2011, the accused came near the de facto complainant and talked to the de facto complainant and his son. The accused took the son of the de facto complainant with him to his cabin stating that the child can be afforded the facility to watch Television. After some time, the accused brought the son of the de facto complainant to the place where the de facto complainant was sitting. The son of the de facto complainant was finding it difficult to walk properly. The boy started crying after seeing the wife of the de facto complainant. On enquiry, the boy narrated the incident. The boy was sexually abused by the accused. It was revealed that the accused had carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the boy. The boy disclosed as to what atrocities the de facto complainant did to him. On inspection of the body of the victim, the de facto complainant and BA 6145/2011 3 his wife were fully convinced about the atrocity committed by the accused. There were injuries on the genital and other parts of the body of the boy. The matter was reported to the Welfare Officer of the ship. The medical officer on duty was brought and he examined the boy. The de facto complainant met the Captain of the ship and put forward his grievance. The ship arrived at Kochi at 10.45 A.M. on 14.7.2011. The First Information Statement was given at the Harbour Police Station at 11.30 A.M. on the same day. 5. As stated earlier, the petitioner was arrested on 14.7.2011 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The investigation is in progress. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is totally false and it is a cooked up story. The petitioner relies on the passenger list kept in the vessel. It is contended that as per Annexure A1 passenger list, the de facto complainant and his family did not travel in the ship on the date of occurrence. The learned Public Prosecutor BA 6145/2011 4 submitted that the wife of the de facto complainant has explained to the investigating officer about the absence of the names of the de facto complainant and his wife in the passenger list. She stated that they could not board the ship for which tickets were taken. Therefore, with the permission of the Welfare Officer, they travelled in the ship in question. In view of the above explanation, at this stage, it is to be taken that the de facto complainant and his family members were travelling in the ship. The fact that the de facto complainant reported the matter to the Harbour Police, Kochi at 11.30 A.M. on 14.7.2011, and also the materials collected during investigation would show that the de facto complainant and his family members were on board the ship from Kalpeni on 13.7.2011. 7. Investigation revealed that apart from the petitioner, there was another police constable on duty in the ship. It is also clear that a cabin is provided for the police on duty in the ship. 8. The wound certificate issued by the medical officer after examining the victim would disclose the following BA 6145/2011 5 injuries/clinical features on the body of the victim : “Abrasion (L) thigh (0.1 x 0.1 cm.) Abrasion (R) side of chest (0.5 x 0.1) Abrasion (R) face side (0.5 x 0.1) Abrasion glans penis (linear 1 cm.) Edema glans penis Perianal orifice (N) in appearance” 9. The offence alleged against the petitioner is very grave in nature. The petitioner was on duty while he allegedly committed the offence. An offence of similar nature being committed on land is to be distinguished form the offence committed on board the ship. The victim would not be able to escape at all, if an offence is committed on board the ship. Parents of the victim also would not be able to rescue the victim. If an offence is committed on board the ship, adequate medical attention and treatment also would not be available to the victim. It was the duty of the petitioner to protect the interests of the passengers on board the ship. The allegation is that he not only did not protect their interests, but he exploited the situation and BA 6145/2011 6 misused his official position. It is necessary to ensure that the police officers on duty on board the ships are persons of sterling character and who are genuinely interested in the welfare of the passengers. It would not be safe at all to allow police officers with criminal background to act as officers on duty on board the ships with passengers. If such persons are allowed to be on duty in the ships, the interests of the travelling public would be at peril. The allegations would show that the accused did not spare even a boy aged 3 1/2 years. The accused is aged 54 years. What would be the fate of young women and girls, if they come to the hands of persons like the petitioner? The State as well as the Lakshadweep administration should ensure that service oriented policemen are employed on duty in the ships from the mainland to Lakshadweep Islands and from Lakshadweep Islands to the main land. 10. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is not just and proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. If he is released on bail, there is every possibility of the witnesses being intimidated or influenced and the family of the victim BA 6145/2011 7 harassed. From the case diary, it is seen that the de facto complainant is running a tea stall. Naturally, he must be hailing from a family with poor financial background. The safety and security of the victim and his family members also would be in jeopardy, if bail is granted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. The Registry will send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala and to the Administrator, Lakshadweep, Kavaratti. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl