Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 675 OF 2022 CRIME NO.33/2022 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SELVARAJ, AGED 37 YEARS, PANAKKAPADAM HOUSE, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT PANAKKAPADAM HOUSE, NEAR POTTA TEMPLE , AMMAN ROAD, EROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306 BY ADV C.J.VARGHESE VINU RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY T.R.RENJITH, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ADV.RENJITH B. MARAR, R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 33 of 2022 of Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(k)(n), 377 & 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that after employing the de
facto complainant, the petitioner subjected her to sexual assault and rape on several occasions and thereafter, when the de facto complainant got married, the petitioner continued to blackmail her and sent her intimate pictures and videos to her husband. It is alleged that following the same, the de facto complainant has now broken up with her husband and is now living separately.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
allegations are totally baseless. It is submitted that three mobile phones of the petitioner have been seized by the police and the petitioner is confident that no evidence of any intimate picture or video of the de facto complainant being shared, can be recovered from the same. It is further submitted that the allegation of forwarding of pictures as above is absolutely untrue and that the ..3.. relationship, if any, between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was purely consensual. It is also submitted that the allegation that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 376(2)(k)(n) of IPC is also not correct as the de facto complainant was a partner with the business of the petitioner and not an employee. It is submitted that there were some financial transactions between them and the complaint has been raised only to escape from the liability to repay certain amounts due to the petitioner.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de
facto complainant vehemently oppose grant of bail to the petitioner. The circumstances appearing against the petitioner are pointed out from records. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that the
petitioner had forwarded intimate pictures of the de facto complainant to her husband, as a result of which, the de facto complainant has now broken up with her husband. It is further submitted that the petitioner was blackmailing the de facto complainant using her pictures. It is submitted that the relationship was not consensual and that the petitioner had misused his position as an employer. The difference in signatures ..4.. of the de facto complainant in Annexures 1, 3 & 4 are pointed out to suggest that the documents are fabricated. It is further submitted that the petitioner should not be released on bail.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody from 12.01.2022 and since his continued detention may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to strict conditions to ensure that he does not intimidate the de facto complainant or blackmail her in any manner. In the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; (b)Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 33 of 2022 of Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam District, every Saturday at 11.00 am until filing of final report;
(c) The petitioner shall not enter the local limits of Aluva town
..5.. except on the directions of any authority or for appearance before any court; (d)The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the victim or any witness in Crime No. 33 of 2022 of Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam District;
(e) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the
jurisdictional court. If the petitioner does not have a passport, he shall execute an affidavit to that effect and file the same before the jurisdictional court within seven days of release on bail;
(f) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on
bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, the investigating officer in Crime No. 33 of 2022 of Kadavanthra Police Station, Ernakulam District, may file an application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE bka/15.02.2022