Kerala High Court
Satheeshkumar vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7293 OF 2024
CRIME NO.45/2022 OF RAMANKARY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.4534 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SATHEESHKUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, KADATHU HOUSE, PACHA CHEKKIDIKKADU P O,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689573
BY ADV ARAVIND GHOSH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.R RENJITH SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7293 of 2024
2
2024:KER:69368
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.7293 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.45/2022 of Ramankary Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that 14 years back, that is on 07/04/2008 at about 1.00 am, while the de-facto complainant went out of her house for going to bathroom situated out side the house for urination, some one came from behind covered her mouth and forcefully dragged her to the edge of their property and strangled her neck and threatened to kill her if she make noise and had committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he extorted her golden chain weighing 1 sovereign and golden bangle B.A.No.7293 of 2024 3 2024:KER:69368 weighing 3/4 sovereign. She identified from her father that the person was the petitioner as per the description of the person given by her to the father. According to the victim, she told the entire facts to the father. But, due to the advice of her father, she did not disclose the same with her mother. But, after the 7 months of the incident, since she is not getting menstrual period, she consulted a Doctor at Edathua Primary Health Centre and on examination, she realized that she was pregnant. Thereafter, even without revealing these incident to others, the father take her to Kanjirappally Child Welfare Bhavan and she delivered a child there and some one adopted that child with the consent of the victim and her father.
4. Based on the complaint of the victim, the Idukki Vanitha Police registered Crime No.3/2022 as evident by Annexure A4 and Annexure A5 FIR and FIS respectively. After about one year and ten months, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha recorded a statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC on 04.11.2023. Annexure A6 B.A.No.7293 of 2024 4 2024:KER:69368 is the statement. In Annexure A6 statement, it is stated by the victim that she identified the accused according to the description given by her to her father about the accused. But, the First Information Report was given by the victim after the death of her father. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court granted him bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. This Court perused the First Information Statement and other materials produced along with the bail application. Admittedly, the alleged incident happened about 14 years back. The victim delivered a child. According to the victim, she identified the accused through her father. When the statement is given, the father is no more.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. B.A.No.7293 of 2024 5
2024:KER:69368 There can be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and if the investigating officer arrests him, there can be a further direction to release him on bail on stringent conditions.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. 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.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of these case, the bail application is allowed with the following directions:-
i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer B.A.No.7293 of 2024 6 2024:KER:69368 proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on 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;
iii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
v) Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;
vi) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble B.A.No.7293 of 2024 7 2024:KER:69368 Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
vii) 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 JUDGE bng