Abdul Gafoor Pookkuth v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.7913 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.668/2020 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **ABDUL GAFOOR POOKKUTH AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ POOKKUTH HOUSE, OORAKAM, MELMURY PO, MALAPPURAM 676517** **BY ADVS. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) SRI.T.V.GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** ## **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. No.7913 of 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 4th day of December 2020** .. **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.** ## **2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.** **668 of 2020 of Chokli Police Station, Kannur District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that, on 24.09.2020 at 3.30 p.m., the accused , with intent to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, who is a Hindi teacher in a School at Peringathoor in which the accused is the Principal, kissed her from his cabin. It is also alleged that she was disrobed and touched on her breast by the accused. It is also alleged that, on many occasions the accused had** ## **B.A. No.7913 of 2020 3** **touched her body without her consent. The alleged incident happened on 24.9.2020. The complaint was filed by the defacto complainant on 28.9.2020. Accordingly, the case is registered.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the allegations against the petitioner are false. The counsel submitted that he is the Principal of the school and the defacto complainant is a Hindi teacher in that school. The counsel submitted that, certain instructions were given to the defacto complainant in connection with the administration of the school. It is alleged that the defacto complainant refused to do the same. The matter was reported to the management. When the management is trying to take steps to suspend the petitioner, a false case is registered against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that, the allegation against the petitioner is only to humiliate the petitioner, who is the Principal of that school. The counsel submitted that, the** ## **B.A. No.7913 of 2020 4** ## **petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, there is nothing to disbelieve the statement given by the victim in this case. The public prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 354 and 354B IPC is attracted in this case which are non-bailable offences.** **7. When this bail application came up for consideration on an earlier occasion, this Court directed the learned public prosecutor to instruct the investigating officer to go through the CCTV footage alleged to be seized during the course of investigation. Now a further statement was filed by the investigating officer, in which it is stated that, there is no CCTV camera inside the cabin of the Principal. But the investigating officer reported that the circumstances in this case will probablise the case of the victim in this case because outside the cabin of the Principal, there is a CCTV.** **8. I considered the contentions of the learned** ## **B.A. No.7913 of 2020 5** **counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Principal of a school. It is true that, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. But I cannot decide the correctness of the statement given by the victim in this case while considering a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The non bailable offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 354 and 354B IPC. If the allegations against the petitioner are correct, it is a very serious thing. But if the allegations against the petitioner are not correct, it will damage not only the petitioner but also the reputation of the school. This is a case in which the matter to be decided based on oral evidence adduced before the court below if a final report is filed. I am not in a position to decide the correctness of the statement of the victim while considering this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under Section 354 IPC is only five years. As far as Section 354B IPC is concerned, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is upto 7 years. The Full Bench** ## **B.A. No.7913 of 2020 6** **of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9400 of 2020 observed that the bail applications involving offences in which maximum punishment that can be imposed is below** **7 years, the court can take a liberal view, in the light of the present pandemic situation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that, the petitioner and the victim are teachers in the school, where several students are studying, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. According to me the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case.** **9. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.** **10. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle** ## **B.A. No.7913 of 2020 7** **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.** **11. 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. The 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 executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty** ## **B.A. No.7913 of 2020 8** **Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;** **3. 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;** **4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;** **5. The 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. The petitioner shall strictly** **B.A. No.7913 of 2020 9** **abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid** **19 pandemic;** **7. 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** **pkk**