Kerala High Court
Ismayil vs State Of Kerala on 19 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
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1702 OF 2024
CRIME NO.98/2024 OF KUTTIYADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:
ISMAYIL,
AGED 50 YEARS
KUNHIPARAMBATH (H), THALIYIL P.O., DEVARKOVIL,
THALEEKKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673508
BY ADV.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
PP.SRI.M.P.PRASANTH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1702 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.1702 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the 1 st accused in Crime No.98 of 2024
of Kuttiadi Police Station, Kozhikode. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 109, 377 of IPC and Section 4(1)(2), 3, 9(1) 16 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.
3. The prosecution case is that on one day in January 2024
and on one day in September 2023 and also for three days in
between these dates, the 1st accused kidnapped the victim minor
boy aged 14 years, in a car and a motor cycle and subjected him
to penetrative sexual assault. It is submitted that the 1 st accused
abetted the commission of penetrative sexual assault done by the
other four accused on the victim minor boy. Thus the prosecution
alleges that the accused committed the aforesaid offences. The
petitioner was arrested on 14.02.2024.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
BAIL APPL. NO. 1702 OF 2024
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in custody from 14.02.2024 onwards. The counsel
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this
Court grant him bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor very seriously opposed
the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
the accused committed penetrative sexual assault.
7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner
and the Public Prosecutor. It is true that very serious allegations are
levelled against the petitioner. The victim is a minor boy. But it is a
fact that the petitioner is in custody from 14.02.2024. The
investigation of the case is almost complete. The evidence in this
case is oral evidence. In such circumstances, I think this bail
application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Since the victim
is a minor boy, there is chance on the part of the petitioner to
influence the victim. Therefore, there can be a direction to the
petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit of Kutttiadi Police
Station, for a period of 60 days, except for appearing before the
investigating officer. With the above condition and other usual
conditions, this bail application can be allowed.
8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is
BAIL APPL. NO. 1702 OF 2024
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.
9. 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 1702 OF 2024
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 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.
7. The petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdiction
limit of Kuttiadi Police Station for a period of 60 days
from the date of his release.
8. The petitioner shall furnish his place of
residence where he is going to reside during the
above perioid to the investigating officer with his
phone number within one week from the date of his
release. I make it clear that the petitioner can enter
the jurisdiction limit of the Kuttiadi Police Station for
the purpose of investigation when the investigating
officer demads his presence.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
msp
