Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.4985 OF 2020 CRIME NO.15/2020 OF CHITTARIKAL POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED: RAMESH.V.K AGED 27 YEARS S/O KUNCHIKRISHNAN VILLIATT HOUSE, EAST ELERI P.O, VIA PALAVAYAL, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 671 326. BY ADV. SRI.PINTO FREDERIC RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2 ADDL. SHARANYA SURESH (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI R2 BY ADV. K.ANILA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. NO.4985 OF 2020 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 19th day of August 2020 ... This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.15 of 2020 of Chittarikal Police Station, Kasargod District. The above case is registered against the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(l)(n) r/w. Section 6(i) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner had an illicit relationship with the victim girl. The victim girl was a minor aged 17 years at that time. The prosecution case is that, on several occasions in
between 6.12.2019 and 18.1.2020, the petitioner committed rape on the minor victim aged 17 years. B.A. NO.4985 OF 2020 3 Hence, the petitioner committed the said offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, the petitioner and the victim girl were in love. The counsel submitted that, the parents of the petitioner and the victim girl were aware of the same. The counsel submitted that, now the victim girl is major and the petitioner married her. Annexure A3 is the certificate of marriage issued by
the local authority as per the provisions of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. The counsel submitted that, now the victim
delivered a child. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner and the victim girl are now leading a happy married life. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.
6. The learned public prosecutor opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that the victim girl is a minor and the petitioner B.A. NO.4985 OF 2020 4 committed rape on her.
7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true that, simply because, the petitioner married the victim girl, the offence under Section 376 will not wipe out. That is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer. But this Court has to take note of the fact that, the petitioner now married the victim girl and the petitioner produced Annexure-A3 marriage certificate. I am considering Annexure-A3 only for the purpose of deciding this bail application.
8. Moreover, considering the need to follow
social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1
of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates
inside prisons.
B.A. NO.4985 OF 2020 5
9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle
that, the bail is the rule and the jail is theexception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be B.A. NO.4985 OF 2020 6
released on bail executing a 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 officer concerned;
3. The petitioner shall appear
before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;
5. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of B.A. NO.4985 OF 2020 7 the commission of which he is suspected;
6. The petitioner shall strictly
abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic;
7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN pkk JUDGE