Kerala High Court
Satheeshkumar vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7293 OF 2024
CRIME NO.45/2022 OF RAMANKARY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.4534 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SATHEESHKUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O THANKAPPAN, KADATHU HOUSE, PACHA CHEKKIDIKKADU P O,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689573
BY ADV ARAVIND GHOSH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T.R RENJITH SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7293 of 2024
2
2024:KER:69368
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
B.A.No.7293 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.45/2022
of Ramankary Police Station, Alappuzha. The above case is
registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable
under Sections 376, 506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that 14
years back, that is on 07/04/2008 at about 1.00 am, while the
de-facto complainant went out of her house for going to
bathroom situated out side the house for urination, some one
came from behind covered her mouth and forcefully dragged
her to the edge of their property and strangled her neck and
threatened to kill her if she make noise and had committed
sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he extorted her
golden chain weighing 1 sovereign and golden bangle
2024:KER:69368
weighing 3/4 sovereign. She identified from her father that
the person was the petitioner as per the description of the
person given by her to the father. According to the victim,
she told the entire facts to the father. But, due to the advice
of her father, she did not disclose the same with her mother.
But, after the 7 months of the incident, since she is not
getting menstrual period, she consulted a Doctor at Edathua
Primary Health Centre and on examination, she realized that
she was pregnant. Thereafter, even without revealing these
incident to others, the father take her to Kanjirappally Child
Welfare Bhavan and she delivered a child there and some
one adopted that child with the consent of the victim and her
father.
4. Based on the complaint of the victim, the Idukki
Vanitha Police registered Crime No.3/2022 as evident by
Annexure A4 and Annexure A5 FIR and FIS respectively. After
about one year and ten months, the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha recorded a statement of the
victim under Section 164 Cr.PC on 04.11.2023. Annexure A6
2024:KER:69368
is the statement. In Annexure A6 statement, it is stated by
the victim that she identified the accused according to the
description given by her to her father about the accused. But,
the First Information Report was given by the victim after the
death of her father. According to the petitioner, even if the
entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions, if this Court granted him bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. This Court perused the First Information Statement
and other materials produced along with the bail application.
Admittedly, the alleged incident happened about 14 years
back. The victim delivered a child. According to the victim,
she identified the accused through her father. When the
statement is given, the father is no more.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case.
2024:KER:69368
There can be a direction to the petitioner to surrender before
the investigating officer and if the investigating officer arrests
him, there can be a further direction to release him on bail 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.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision
and considering the facts and circumstances of these case,
the bail application is allowed with the following directions:-
i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation;
ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer
2024:KER:69368
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;
iii) 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;
iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission
of the jurisdictional Court;
v) 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;
vi) 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
2024:KER:69368
Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
vii) 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
