Kerala High Court
Sreelatha @ Sreekutty vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
BAIL APPL. NO. 1615 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:10099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1615 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1116/2024 OF Vallikunnam Police Station, Alappuzha
PETITIONER/S:
SREELATHA @ SREEKUTTY
AGED 19 YEARS
D/O VIJAYAN, AGED 19 YEARS KUMBALATHU VITTIL,
CHAVARA P.O, SHAGARMANGALAM, PONMANA VILLAGE.,
PIN - 691583
BY ADVS.
LLOYD JOHN
JERRY MATHEW
REGHU SREEDHARAN
DEVIKA K.R.
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI.G.SUDHEER PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 1615 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:10099
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1615 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.
1116/2024 Vallikkunnam Police Station, Alappuzha. The
above case is registered against the petitioner alleging
offences punishable under Sections 4(1) r/w 3(a), 6 r/w 5(l)
(n), 10 r/w 9(l) (n) & 8 r/w 7 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Sec. 84 of
the Junvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, survivor is a
boy aged 16 years and is a relative of the
petitioner/accused, who is a 19 year old girl. She enticed
the survivor and had sexual intercourse with him at his
2025:KER:10099
rental residence situated at Kattanam Muri and on
30.11.2024, kidnapped him from the custody of his parents
and took him to Ernakulam, Tamilnadu, Malappuram,
Mysore and several other places and on several occasions ,
she had sexual intercourse with the boy aged 16. Hence, it
is alleged that the accused committed the offences. The
petitioner is in custody from 26.12.2024.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the
Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is a young girl and she has not
committed any offence. The counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any
conditions, if this Court grants him bail. The Public
Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public
Prosecutor submitted that the allegation against the
petitioner is very serious.
6. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is very serious. But, the petitioner is a girl aged
2025:KER:10099
19 years. But, the petitioner is in custody from 26.12.2024
onwards. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not
necessary. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail. But, I
make it clear that one of the sureties should be a parent of
the petitioner.
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. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union
of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that:
"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we
must mention here that the Special Court and
2025:KER:10099
the High Court did not consider the material in
the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus
was more on the activities of PFI, and
therefore, the appellant's case could not be
properly appreciated. When a case is made out
for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have
any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations
of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the
duty of the Courts is to consider the case for
grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail
is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled
law. Even in a case like the present case where
there are stringent conditions for the grant of
bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule
holds good with only modification that the bail
can be granted if the conditions in the statute
are satisfied. The rule also means that once a
case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court
cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start
denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a
violation of the rights guaranteed under Art.21
of our Constitution." (underline supplied)
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement [2024 KHC 6426], also the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that:
"53. The Court further observed that, over a
period of time, the trial courts and the High
2025:KER:10099
Courts have forgotten a very well - settled
principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as
a punishment. From our experience, we can say
that it appears that the trial courts and the High
Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of
bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal
is an exception is, at times, followed in breach.
On account of non - grant of bail even in straight
forward open and shut cases, this Court is
flooded with huge number of bail petitions
thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high
time that the trial courts and the High Courts
should recognize the principle that "bail is rule
and jail is exception"."
10. 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. One of the sureties
2025:KER:10099
should be a parent of the petitioner.
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
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 she is accused,
or suspected, of the commission of which she
is suspected.
5. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional
2025:KER:10099
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
