Kerala High Court
Sani Ramdas vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
B.A.No.1869 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1869 OF 2024
CRIME NO.161/2024 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SANI RAMDAS,
AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O RAMDAS, KATHRIKKADAV, KADAVANTHRA,
ERNAKULAM CITY, PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
V.V.PRATHEEKSH KURUP
RAVI KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 XXXXX
XXXXX
PP.SMT.SEENA C.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1869 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1869 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) .
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.161/2024 of
Kadavanthra Police Station. The above case is registered against
the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 354, 376,
376(2)(n) of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, on the promise of marriage,
the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant
and he did not keep up the promise of marriage and thereby, the
petitioner committed the offence.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if
the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out by the
petitioner. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court
in Girish v. State of Kerala and Another (2022 KHC 452).
According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a married man and the
same is known to the defacto complainant. Therefore, even if the
allegations are accepted, the sexual intercourse is with the consent
of the victim. Therefore, it is submitted that no offence is made out
and the petitioner may be released on bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can
be allowed on stringent condition. The victim in this case is major.
The admitted case is that the victim was raped from the house of
the petitioner. It is also stated that the sexual intercourse was from
a hotel in which the petitioner and the victim were residing. I do not
want to make any observations about the merits of the case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this
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 appear before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from today and
shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating
Officer 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;
3. 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;
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5. 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. 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.
7. 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 Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC
663).
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
msp
