High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-11-16Bail application allowed with stringent conditi...

JITHIN R ARAVIND v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-11-16
Court Decision / Holding: Bail granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC with stringent conditions imposed by the court.
Final Disposition: Bail application allowed with stringent conditions as specified by the court.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jithin R Aravind

Respondents

State of Kerala
Station House Officer, Pandalam Police Station, Pandalam, Pathanamthitta

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Rasheed C. Noor Anad

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor
• Sri. Renjith T.R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Jithin R Aravind, accused in Crime No. 516/2019 of Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta, alleging offence under Section 376 IPC. The complaint, lodged on 6.3.2019, accuses the petitioner of engaging in sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant from 2016 to 2018 on a promise of marriage. The defacto complainant, aged 31, reportedly consented to the intercourse during this period, with the implicit promise of matrimony, which the petitioner later withdrew. The petitioner contends that even if the allegations are accepted, no offence under 376 IPC is made out, citing Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 5 KHC 322, and expresses willingness to comply with stringent conditions if bail is granted. The State Public Prosecutor opposed bail and furnished the complaint filed by the victim. After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the admittted facts could justify bail with stringent conditions, and emphasized social-distancing considerations under COVID-19 guidelines, referencing the Supreme Court’s orders and a Kerala Full Bench decision. The court reiterated the general principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, and ultimately granted bail subject to specified conditions to ensure a fair trial and public health safety.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure CodeSection 376 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception to ensure fair trial

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out, citing Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand to argue that the facts align with cases where the Supreme Court held that the offence under 376 IPC would not be made out. The petitioner is amenable to stringent conditions and undertakes to cooperate with investigation, abide by travel restrictions, and refrain from any inducement or intimidation. The High Court was urged to exercise its discretion in favor of bail, especially in light of social distancing norms during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in recognition of the principle that bail is the norm rather than the exception.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, placing reliance on the gravity of the allegation and the FI statement of the victim, who is 31 years old. The prosecution requested that the case not be released on bail, given the potential risk to the victim and the seriousness of the charge. The court was also reminded of the ongoing pandemic and the need to maintain public health norms while ensuring the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand	2020(5) KHC 322	Mentioned Only	Counsel relied on this SC decision to argue that the alleged 376 IPC offence may not be made out; the court did not adopt or distinguish this precedent but referred to it as part of the arguments.
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used by the court to underscore the basic principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception to ensure fair trial.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify social distancing norms and related directives that influence the management of prisoners during the pandemic.
Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Referenced alongside COVID-19 guidelines affecting prison administration and bail-related 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 JITHIN R ARAVIND v. STATE OF KERALA 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** ## **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.516/2019 OF Pandalam Police Station , Pathanamthitta** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED** **JITHIN R ARAVIND AGED 35 YEARS MELETHIL VILAPARAMBIL VEEDU, VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRCT 689691** **BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA**| ||**682031**| |**2**|**STATION HOUSE OFFICER**| ||**PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA**| ||**DISTRCT**| ||**689501**| ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020** **2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 16th day of November 2020** **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.516 of 2019 of Pandalam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The complaint was filed on 6.3.2019.** **3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant on a promise that he will marry her. The allegation is that the petitioner became friend with the victim in 2014. Thereafter, from 2016 to** **Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020** **3** **2018, the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant at different places on a promise that the petitioner will marry her. Subsequently, the petitioner withdrew from the promise.** **4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.** **5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner relied the judgment of the Apex Court in Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand 2020(5) KHC 322) and submitted that the facts of the case is similar to the facts in which the Supreme Court declared that in such** **Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020** **4** **situation, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out. The 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 complaint submitted by the victim in this case.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The admitted prosecution case is that from 2016 to 2018 there was sexual intercourse between the petitioner and the victim and the victim gave consent for the same because there was a promise from the petitioner that he will marry her. The complaint is filed on** **Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020** **5** **6.3.2019 alleging that the petitioner withdrew from the promise. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. I perused the F.I.statement given by the victim. Admittedly the victim is aged 31 years. 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** **Bail Appl..No.7426 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** **Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020** **7** **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 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** **Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020** **8** **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. 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.** **Bail Appl..No.7426 OF 2020** **9** **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 of the above any 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.** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **JUDGE** ## **Al/-+**