High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-21Bail granted on stringent conditions.

Deepu B @ Kuttan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:5184 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-21
Court Decision / Holding: The Bail Application is allowed with stringent conditions: (1) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (2) appearance before the Investigating Officer as required; (3) the petitioner shall not leave India without permission; (4) the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence; (5) the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Hosdurg Police Station except for purposes connected with the case until final report; (6) the petitioner shall comply with COVID-19/social distancing guidelines; (7) breach of conditions permits cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Bail granted on stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Deepu B @ Kuttan

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor
The Station House Officer (CR No. 263 of 2020) of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District
Radhika R. (victim's mother)
Sathyan P.V. (husband of victim)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Jackson Johny

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Renjith T.R., PP
• Sri. Sanin V.U.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC by Deepu B @ Kuttan, accused in Crime No. 263/2020 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District, for offenses punishable under IPC 376AB read with Section 6 r/w 5(m)(n) of the POCSO Act, allegedly involving a minor girl aged about 4 1/2 years on 1.4.2020. The petitioner has been in custody since 20.6.2020. The prosecuting agency opposed bail due to the seriousness of the alleged offences; the defense asserted innocence, claiming the case is false and foisted by the victim’s mother amid matrimonial disputes with the complainant’s husband. The petitioner is a close relative of that husband, and an affidavit by the victim’s father (husband of the defacto complainant) exonerating him was submitted, though the court did not rely on it as determinative. Citing the gravity of the offence, the defense nonetheless urged for bail on humane grounds and to enable fair trial. The court recognized the social-distancing norms and COVID-19 guidelines, and held bail as the general rule with exceptions. It ultimately granted bail on stringent conditions, including a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearances before the IO, prohibitions on leaving India and entering Hosdurg jurisdiction except for purposes of the case, and compliance with COVID-19 guidelines. The order emphasizes investigative duties and potential cancellation of bail for violations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 Cr.P.C.Section 376AB IPCSection 6 r/w 5(m)(n) POCSO Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner maintains innocence and asserts that the allegations are false, allegedly foisted by the victim’s mother amid ongoing matrimonial disputes with the complainant’s husband. He points to an affidavit from the victim’s father (husband of the defacto complainant) exonerating him, and argues that the case requires thorough investigation before any harsher measures. The defense contends that there is no cogent reason to deny bail and that the risk of persecution can be mitigated with stringent conditions. The petitioner emphasizes the long investigation period prior to filing the F.I. statement and seeks bail to prepare a fair defense.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor counters the bail plea by highlighting the grave nature of the offences involving a minor, the need to preserve the integrity of the investigation, and the likelihood of tampering or intimidation if released. The State argues that the gravity of sex offences against children warrants cautious handling and that bail should be denied at this stage to ensure a fair and effective investigation and trial.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify social distancing norms in prisons and to support measures to minimize inmates during the pandemic.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited for the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, supporting a cautious approach to deny bail only when warranted.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Full Bench directions on COVID-19-related prison guidance referenced as context for bail considerations.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Deepu B @ Kuttan v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5184 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.263/2020 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **DEEPU B @ KUTTAN AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.UPENDRAN, RESIDING AT PUTHIYA VALAPPU KADAPPURAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671313** **BY ADV. SRI.JACKSON JOHNY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CR.NO. 263 OF 2020) OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671315** - **3 RADHIKA R. AGED 30 YEARS PUTHIYA VALAPPU KADAPPURAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671313** - **4 SATHYAN P.V. AGED 40 YEARS PUTHIYA VALAPPU KADAPPURAM, HOSDURG VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671313** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP R4 BY ADV. SHRI SANIN V.U.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A. NO.5184 OF 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 21st day of August 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.263 of 2020 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) r/w. Sections 6 r/w 5(m)(n) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The petitioner is in custody from 20.6.2020 onwards.** **3. The prosecution case is that, on 1.4.2020, the accused sexually abused a minor girl aged 4 ½ years by touching the genital organ of the victim. It is the case of the defacto complainant, the** ## **B.A. NO.5184 OF 2020 3** **mother of the victim girl that, the child complained about a pain on her private parts and when the defacto complainant enquired about the same, the child disclosed to the defacto complainant that the petitioner committed the above activities. The alleged incident happened on 1.4.2020. The F.I. statement was given on 12.5.2020. The petitioner was arrested on 20.6.2020.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner** **and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is innocent in this case. The counsel submitted that, this is a false case foisted against the petitioner by the mother of the victim. The counsel submitted that, there is some difference of opinion between the defacto complainant and her husband. The petitioner is a close relative of the husband of the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner supported the husband of the defacto complainant when there was a dispute between the** ## **B.A. NO.5184 OF 2020 4** **defacto complainant and her husband. According to the petitioner, at that time, the defacto complainant threatened that, she will foist a false case against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that, the husband of the defacto complainant filed an affidavit before this Court. The counsel submitted that, in the affidavit, it is stated by the father of the victim, who is the husband of the defacto complainant that, this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The father of the victim clearly stated that the petitioner is innocent in this case.** **6. The learned public prosecutor seriously opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor** **submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. The allegation is that, the petitioner committed sexual assault on a minor girl aged 4 ½ years. The public prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled orders under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail** ## **B.A. NO.5184 OF 2020 5** **application can be allowed, on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 20.6.2020 onwards. The alleged incident happened on 1.4.2020 and the F.I.statement was given only on 12.5.2020. Admittedly, there is some matrimonial dispute between the defact complainant and her husband. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner is a close relative of the husband of the defact complainant. It is true that, an affidavit is filed by the father of the victim girl exonerating the petitioner from the allegation. I do not want to make any observation about the contents in the affidavit at this stage. This is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer.** **Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit of Hosdurg Police Station till a final report in Crime No.263 of 2020 of Hosdurg Police Station, is filed.** ## **B.A. NO.5184 OF 2020 6** **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 COVID19 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.** **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** ## **B.A. NO.5184 OF 2020 7** **circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:** **1. The 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. The petitioner shall not leave** **India without permission of the** **B.A. NO.5184 OF 2020 8** ## **jurisdictional Court;** **4. 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;** **5. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Hosdurg Police Station, except for the purposes mentioned above, till a final report in Crime No.263 of 2020 of Hosdurge Police Station is filed.** **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;** **7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the** **B.A. NO.5184 OF 2020 9** **bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.** **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **JUDGE** **pkk**