Kerala High Court
Rajeev vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942
Bail Appl..No.1155 OF 2021
CRIME NO.26/2020 OF Peroorkada Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S:
RAJEEV
AGED 45 YEARS
352 HARITHA NILAYAM, OLAMPARA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695005
695005
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
C N PRABHAKARAN PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.1155 OF 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1155 of 2021
--------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video
Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.26 of 2021 of
Poojappura Police Station. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Secs. 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(c)(i)(k)(l) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The
offence under Sec. 119(a) of the KP Act is also alleged. The
petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2020.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, who is a
Physiotherapist working in the General Hospital, repeatedly
committed aggravated sexual assault against the victim boy
aged 14 during the course of his employment. The
Prosecution has alleged that the petitioner committed the
sexual assaults on victim by touching his penis and that
caused bleeding on his penis. The petitioner is in custody
from 10.1.2021 onwards.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is not correct. He was doing
his duties as a Physiotherapist. The counsel submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 10.1.2021 onwards. The
counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The counsel also
submitted that there is 10 days delay in filing the complaint.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed
the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that
the petitioner is a temporary employee in the Government
service and the allegation against the petitioner is very
serious.
7. After hearing both sides and considering the fact
that the petitioner is in custody from 10.01.2021 onwards, I
think this bail application can be allowed, on stringent
conditions. It is true that the allegations against the
petitioner are very serious. But there is a delay of 10 days
in filing the complaint. These are matters to be investigated
by the investigating officer during the course of
investigation. But considering the entire facts and
circumstances of this case, this bail application can be
allowed on condition that the petitioner shall not enter the
jurisdictional limit of Poojappura Police Station, till the
investigation in Crime No. 26/2021 is completed. The
petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer
on all Mondays, till the final report is filed. With these
conditions, this bail application can be allowed.
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.
9. 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.
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. Petitioner shall be released on bail
on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. 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.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India
without permission of the jurisdictional
Court.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Petitioner shall not enter the
jurisdictional limit of Poojappura Police
Station, till the investigation in Crime
No.26/2021 is completed.
7. Petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.00
am, till the final report is filed. For the
purpose of appearing before the
investigating officer, the petitioner can enter
the jurisdictional limit of the Poojappura
Police Station.
8. 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
SKS
