Prakash vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5050 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                 BAIL APPL. NO. 1625 OF 2022
   CRIME NO.64/2022 OF Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha


PETITIONER:

          PRAKASH
          AGED 54 YEARS
          GOURI BHAVANAM,
          KERALA,
          ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688006
          BY ADVS.
          S.RAJEEV
          V.VINAY
          M.S.ANEER
          SARATH K.P.

RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
    2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          NOORANAD POLICE STATION
          (CRIME NO. 64/2022 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION-
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690504), PIN - 690504
          BY ADV.SREEJA V., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.1625/2022

                                  2




                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                    --------------------------------
                      B.A.No.1625 of 2022
             ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 06th day of May, 2022


                              ORDER

This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.64/2022 of

Nooranad Police Station. The above case is registered against

the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections

354A (1)(iii)of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 12, 11(1)(i)

and 11(4) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused committed

sexual assault on a minor girl aged 17 years and according to

the defacto complainant, the petitioner made unusual sound

and exhibited his nakedness and thereby committed the

offence.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegations against the petitioner are false. The counsel also B.A.No.1625/2022

submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated because of

the political reason. It is also contended that the petitioner is

ready to abide any condition if this Court grant him bail. The

Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The

Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed

serious offence. If the allegation against the petitioner is

accepted, the same is serious in nature. But the petitioner has

got a case that it is a politically motivated case. I do not want

to make any observation about the same. While considering

the bail application, there is nothing to disbelieve the

statement of the victim. But the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner may not be necessary. These facts can be proved by

oral evidence alone. But, according to the prosecution, during

the investigation period, there is chance for influencing the

victim by the petitioner. In such circumstances, there can be a

direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit

of the Police Station for a period of 60 days or till the final

report is filed. With the above condition, the bail application

can be allowed.

5. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the

bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble B.A.No.1625/2022

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.

6. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of

Uttar Pradesh and Another (2021 (5) KHC 353)

considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the

above judgment is extracted hereunder:

"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to B.A.No.1625/2022

believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."

7. 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 two weeks from

today and shall undergo interrogation.

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer

propose 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 arresting officer

concerned.

3. The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer for interrogation as and B.A.No.1625/2022

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 jurisdictional Court.

5. The 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.

6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional

limit of Nooranad Police station for a period of

60 days or till final report is filed, whichever is

earlier. The petitioner shall furnish his phone

number and the details of the place where he is

going to reside during the above period to the

Investigating Officer at the time of surrender

itself.

B.A.No.1625/2022

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. The

prosecution and the victim are at liberty to

approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the

bail, if any of the above conditions are violated.

Sd/-

                                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                             JUDGE