A.R. George v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.7654 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.931/2020 OF Palarivattom Police Station , Ernakulam** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **A.R. GEORGE AGED 69 YEARS ANTHIKATTU HOUSE, VENNALA P.O. KOCHI-682028 682028** **BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.P.VIJAYABHANU SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRUTHY N. BHAT SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY SMT.KIRAN ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 7654 OF 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** -------------------------------- B.A.No.7654 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 24[th ] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.931 of 2020 of Palarivattom Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act & Section 506 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had sexually abused the 8 year old daughter of the defacto complainant during the period from.1.5.2013 to 24.4.2014. The defacto complainant is settled in Unites States of America. On 28.9.2020 she sent an B.A.No. 7654 OF 2020 3 e-mail to the President of the Child Welfare Committee, Ernakulam alleging that there was sexual abuse towards her children from the petitioner. The Child Welfare Committee forwarded the same to the DCP, Law & Order, Ernakulam. Accordingly, the present case is registered. 4. Heard the Senior counsel Adv.Sri.P. Vijayabhanu for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in this case is a lawyer practicing for about 34 years in High Court and Subordinate courts. The Senior counsel submitted that the defacto complainant is the sister of the petitioner's wife. The daughter of the defacto complainant was with the petitioner during the period from 2013 to 2014. Subsequently, there was some misunderstanding between the wife of the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Now after about 8 B.A.No. 7654 OF 2020 4 years, the defacto complainant is making a false complaint alleging that the petitioner sexually abused the children. The Senior counsel submitted that this is a false case and the same is filed by the defacto complainant just to harass the petitioner. The Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor made available the e-mail sent by the defacto complainant and the e-mail sent by the Child Welfare Committee, Ernakulam to the DCP, Ernakulam. The Public Prosecutor submitted that after getting the e-mail, the investigating officer was not able to interrogate the defacto complainant or the child because they are settled in United States of America. 7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The alleged incident happened in 2013 and in 2014. The B.A.No. 7654 OF 2020 5 complaint is filed only in 2020. According to the petitioner, there was some dispute between the defacto complainant and her sister who is the wife of the petitioner. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. The Senior counsel also submitted that in 2017, the defacto complainant came to India and there was no complaint filed by the defacto complainant at that time. As I said earlier, I don't want to make any observation on the merit of this case. These are all matters to be investigated by the investigating officer at the time of investigation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. 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** B.A.No. 7654 OF 2020 6 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons. 9. 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. 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. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose 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. 7654 OF 2020 7 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 cooperate 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. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected. 6. The petitioner shall strictly 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. B.A.No. 7654 OF 2020 8 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** al/-