Kerala High Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To POCSO Accused Over Delayed Reporting, Points Typo In Date Of Crime Mentioned In FIR

The Kerala High Court recently set aside a Sessions Court order granting anticipatory bail to 57 years old man accused of sexually assaulting a minor aged 7 years, on the ground that the alleged delay in registering the crime was on account of a typographical error in the FIR qua the date of commission of the offence. 

Justice Gopinath P. thereby directed the Sessions Court to reconsider the the bail application of the accused afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties. 

"The finding in Annexure-A2 order (impugned order of Sessions Court) that there was considerable delay in registering the complaint seems to be on the basis that, in column No-12 of the FIR, on account of some typographical error, it was noted that the offence alleged was in the month of May 2022, while it was actually in the month of May 2023. A reading of Annexure-A2 order shows that the only reason which compelled the Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/2nd respondent is that there was considerable delay in lodging the complaint. This is obviously a mistake of fact owing to the typographical error in the FIR," the Court observed.

The Court made the above observations in a plea moved by the mother of the minor victim.

The accused was thus booked for the offences under Sections 3 (penetrative sexual assault),4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assault),7 (Sexual Assault), and 8 (Punishment for Sexual Assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Sections 354 A (1)(i) (sexual harassment and punishment thereof) and 376 (punishment for rape) of the IPC and was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.

"I am of the view that the delay caused in the registration of the case and that too the registration of the case after the filing of the present application creates serious suspicion about the prosecution case at this stage," the Sessions Court had said.

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the afore Order and highlighting the mistake regarding the delay in registration of the complain. She pointed that in column No.12 of the FIR, it was stated that the offence took place in the month of May 2022, whereas it actually occurred in May, 2023. It was added that the mistake was subsequently corrected.

The Court thus set aside the impugned order.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Sreeraj M.D., Bhanu Thilak, and Vishnupriya M.V.

Counsel for the Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A., and Advocates K.V. Anil Kumar, Swapna Vijayan, and Radhika S. Anil

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 556

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.