Kerala High Court
Maneesh vs State Of Kerala on 16 April, 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
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2524 OF 2024
CRIME NO.205/2024 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.1387 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MANEESH,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. MANIKANDAN, KAZHANIKKAL HOUSE, KOSAMEDU,
MUDAPPALLUR POST VANDAZHY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678706
BY ADVS.
T.R.VISHNU
V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
R.SHABANA
ANJANA C.R.
NAINU P.A.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
SRI.PRASHANTH M.P., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2524 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
B.A.No.2524 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.205/2024
of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 376(2) IPC and Section 3(a) r/w Section 4(1),
5(j)((ii) r/w Section 6(1) of POCSO Act.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner with
sexual intent to harass the survivor, who is a minor girl aged
16 years, on a day in the 1 st week of December 2023 in the
night, reached in the house of the survivor at Valathala and
with the consent of the family members of the survivor, slept
there. At about 12.00 am, the petitioner and the survivor had
sexual relationship from the hall of the house and thus the
petitioner sexually assaulted the survivor. It is also submitted
that the survivor became pregnant and delivered a child. The
petitioner was arrested on 16.02.2024.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is aged only 23 years and the sexual relationship is
with the consent of the minor. It is also submitted that the
mother of the victim has no objection to grant bail and the
petitioner decided to marry the victim once she attained
majority. The Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.
6. Simply because the mother of the minor has no
objection in granting bail because the petitioner agreed to
marry the minor once she attained majority is not a ground to
grant bail because the offence alleged are very serious and
non-compoundable. But, it is a fact that the petitioner is in
custody from 16.02.2024. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion
that the continued detention of the petitioner is not
necessary. I think the bail application can be allowed 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.
8. 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer on all Mondays 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
