IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5434 of 2008()
1. P.MUNEER @ KUNJUMON
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.T.KAMALA MENON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :01/09/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 5434 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st September, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Section 377 read with 511
of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner
attempted to commit unnatural offence against a boy aged 12
years. He was called to a shed and after closing the door,
unnatural offence was attempted on him by removing his pants.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the offence
was not completed and before the petitioner can do anything, the
boy allegedly ran away and nothing had taken place. It is also
submitted that the petitioner is a fish vendor and the de facto
complainant’s mother knew that he had taken more money from her
by petitioner while selling fish. On this incident, she had questioned
him and she had some vengeance and hence the complaint is
lodged. It is also submitted that the petitioner is prepared to abide
by any condition and anticipatory bail may be granted on condition.
4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner allegedly committed
similar offences against other witnesses also and the case diary
reveals that other small boys were also victims to the same type of
BA.5434/08 2
offence and it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail in an offence
of this nature.
5. After hearing both sides, and on going through the case
diary, I find that in the nature of allegations made against the
petitioner, it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Though the learned counsel for petitioner would submit that this is
a falsely foisted case, because of the grudge of the de facto
complainant’s mother against the petitioner, there are only oral
assertions, but there is nothing to probabalise the innocence of the
petitioner.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.