Kerala High Court
Jinu P.P vs State Of Kerala on 6 May, 2022
BAIL APPL. NO. 2637 OF 2022 1
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. 2637 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 185/2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT (VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN)
PETITIONER/S:
JINU P.P.
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. LATE PATHROSE,PARAPPURATH HOUSE,CHALAPPURAM
COLONY,PIRAVOM KARA,PIRAVOM VILLAGE,MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
PIN - 686664
BY ADVS.
GEORGE SEBASTIAN
M.D.SIMY
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV SREEJA V- SR P.P
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 2637 OF 2022 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
===================
B.A.No. 2637 of 2022
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2022
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.185 of
2022 of Piravom Police Station, Ernakulam District. The
above case is registered against the petitioner alleging
offences punishable under Secs. 323, 354, 363, 354 D(1)(i)
and 376(1) of the IPC and also under Secs. 4 r/w 3(a) and
12 r/w 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused fell
in love with the victim girl aged 17 years and on a day in
May 2021, at about 10 am in the Piravom Valiya Palli
compound, the accused has beaten on the cheeks of the
victim causing pain. Thereafter, on a day in October 2021,
the accused has taken the victim girl in his motorcycle from
Pallikavala, Piravom to Aattutheeram Park and thereafter to
his house near Pallikavala temple. It is alleged that the
accused has forcefully and ignoring the resistance of the
victim committed rape on her. It is also alleged that the
accused has constantly followed the victim and published
the photographs between himself and the victim causing
mental sufferings to her. The petitioner was arrested on
23.2.2022.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is in custody from 23.2.2022 onwards. The
counsel submitted that even if the entire allegations are
accepted, the offence is not made out. The counsel also
submitted that even though the prosecution claims that the
victim is aged 17, she actually crossed 18 years. The
counsel also submitted that the investigation of the case is
almost over. The counsel also submitted that it is clear
from the statement of the victim in the case that the
victim fell in love with the accused and the victim used
to contact him regularly. The Public Prosecutor
seriously opposed the bail application.The Public Prosecutor
submitted that there is prima facie evidence to show that
the accused committed the offence. The Public Prosecutor
submitted that this Court may not release the petitioner on
bail at this stage. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is very serious. But the petitioner is in custody
from 22.3.2022. I perused the prosecution case carefully
and I do not want to make any further observation about
the merit of the case because the same is to be considered
by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The investigation
of the case is almost over. In such circumstances, indefinite
incarceration of the petitioner may not be necessary. The
petitioner can be directed to appear before the investigating
officer, till final report is filed. With the above condition, the
bail application can be allowed.
6. 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.
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. 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. 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/her 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. The petitioner shall appear
before the investigating officer on all
Mondays and Fridays at 10 a.m., till final
report is filed.
6. 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
there is any violation of the above
conditions.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
SKS
