FR BABU VARGHESE v. STATE OF KERALA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6980 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.597/2020 OF KAMBALAKKAD POLICE STATION, WAYANAD** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **FR BABU VARGHESE AGED 37 YEARS POOKKOTTIL HOUSE, THAZHAMUDA P.O., KENICHIRA, POOTHADI AMSOM, WAYANAD - 673596** **BY ADVS. SRUTHY N. BHAT SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY SMT.KIRAN ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682031** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.6980 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ===================== B.A.No.6980 of 2020 ===================== Dated this the 27[th] day of October, 2020** ## **O R D E R** 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.597 of 2020 of Kambalakkad Police Station, Wayanad District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) of IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 08.08.2020 and he is in custody from that date onwards. 3. The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant and her husband were not in good terms. The petitioner, who is a Priest, interfered and told the de facto complainant that he will solve the issue. Thereafter, the B.A.No.6980 of 2020 3 petitioner tried to contact the de facto complainant regularly. On a particular day, the petitioner entered the house of the de facto complainant and committed forceful rape. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 08.08.2020 onwards. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the allegation against the petitioner is not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner is a priest and he committed serious offence. The learned Public Prosecutor made available the FI Statement given by the victim in this case in which her grievance is clearly stated. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, this Court may not release the B.A.No.6980 of 2020 4 petitioner on bail. 7. This is the 3[rd] bail application filed by the petitioner. Annexure-3 is one of the order passed by this Court on 14.09.2020. This Court considered all the aspects and dismissed the bail application. Now the petitioner is in custody for a period of 80 days. It is true that, the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. As I said in my order dated 14.09.2020 in B.A. No. 5640 of 2020, here is a case where Priest is an accused in rape case. As I said earlier, usually the Priest is known as a mediator between God and man. But in this case, he is an accused. But considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 08.08.2020, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I also make it clear that, the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Wayanad District, till the final report is filed in Crime No.597 of 2020. If final report is filed, the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Kamabalakkad Police Station, till the victim in this case is examined by the court concerned B.A.No.6980 of 2020 5 at the time of trial. 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** 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 B.A.No.6980 of 2020 6 decision and considering the facts and 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) each 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 jurisdictional Court;_ _4. The petitioner shall not commit an_ B.A.No.6980 of 2020 7 _offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;_ _5. 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;_ _6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Wayanad District, till the final report is filed in Crime No.597 of 2020._ _7. If final report is filed, the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Kamabalakkad Police Station, till the victim in this case examined by the court concerned at the time of trial._ _8. I make it clear that, the petitioner can enter the jurisdictional limit of the committal court and trial court for the appearance before those courts._ B.A.No.6980 of 2020 8 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** LU