Lekshmi alias Lekshmipriya alias Cherlopalli Prabhavathi v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2020 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.4348 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 4182/2020 DATED 22-05-2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, CHALAKUDY** **CRIME NO.637/2019 OF Mala Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER:** **LEKSHMI ALIAS LEKSHMIPRIYA ALIAS CHERLOPALLI PRABHAVATHI W/O NULIVEEDU VEERANJINEYULU, 1-105, PALLAVOLU, KALIKIRI MANDAL CHITTOOR, ANDRA PRADESH, PRESENT ADDRESS: LEKSHMI @ LEKSHMIPRIYA @ CHERLOPALLI PRABHAVATHI, AGED 27, W/O RAJEEV, PULICKAKUNNEL HOUSE, KANJANGAD, KASARAGOD, KERALA,PIN-671 315.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR SMT.D.SARITHA** ## **RESPONDENT:** ## **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.** ## **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4348 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** ------------------------------------ ## B.A.No.4348 of 2020 ----------------------------------Dated this the 21[st ] day of July, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioner is the 9[th] accused in Crime No.637 of 2019 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner and others alleging offence punishable u/ss. 370, 376, 376D, 120B of IPC and Sec.3(1)(2) a, b of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The petitioner was arrested on 21.5.2020. 3. The prosecution case, which is narrated by the learned Magistrate in Annexure A1 order is extracted hereunder: “Prosecution case is that, de facto complainant was trapped by accused Nos.1 to 3 after introducing themselves to her by way of social media, in a sex racket and she was forced by them to undergo sexual relation with different persons as per their directions. First accused person raped her at first in a lodge at B.A.No.4348 of 2020 3 Athani and two other persons raped her in the very same lodge at two different occasions. Thereafter, she was taken to another lodge at Pudukkad wherein she was raped by one more person which was facilitated by these accused. Thereafter, she was taken to a residence at Poochakulam and was raped by four persons at four different occasions. Thereafter, she was again raped by two other persons in the residence of Sindhu who is the 8[th] accused herein. On 26.8.2019 she was raped by two persons in a lodge at Perinthalmanna. On investigation it has come out that she was subjected to rape at different occasions in Green Line Lodge Athani and that was arranged by second and third accused persons with the full co-operation of accused Nos 18 and 19. Accused Nos 18 and 19 who are running the said lodge rented rooms for the said purposes without even mentioning the same in the registers concerned. Similarly in furtherance of conspiracy among accused Nos 10, 16 and 17, de facto complainant was raped by accused Nos 16 and 17 at Sylon lodge, Perinthalmanna which was facilitated by accused Nos. 20 and 21 who were running the said lodge. De facto complainant was threatened by 10[th] accused and she was taken to Perinthalmanna for the said purpose. Accused No.22 raped on 17.5.2019 at the lodge named Green Line Residency in Athani. Accused No.9 who is the petitioner herein, along with accused No.7 took the de facto complainant to the residence of sixth accused at Poochakkulam on 2.8.2019 and caused her to be raped by accused No.6 accused No.15, accused No.23, accused No.24 B.A.No.4348 of 2020 4 and accused No.25. Thereafter, 9[th] accused person introduced 10[th] accused person herein to de facto complainant who took her to a lodge at Perinthalmanna wherein she was raped by accused Nos.16 and 17. Thus this accused person is alleged to have committed the above mentioned offences. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the other accused except petitioner, accused Nos.7 & 11 were released on bail. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant him bail. 6. The Public Prosecutor conceded that all other accused, except the petitioner, accused Nos.7 & 11 were released on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, saying that the petitioner has got a serious role in the crime. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. - 7.After hearing both sides and taking into consideration - that all other accused are released on bail, I think denial of bail B.A.No.4348 of 2020 5 to the petitioner is an injustice. I am aware that the petitioner is a lady and she has got serious involvement in the case. According to the prosecution, accused No.9 along with accused No.7 took the de facto complainant to the residence of 6[th] accused at Poochakkulam on 2.8.2019 and caused her to be raped by accused No.6, accused No.15, accused No.23, accused No.24 and accused No.25. The petitioner who is the 9[th] accused person introduced 10[th] accused to the de facto complainant who took her to a lodge at Perinthalmanna wherein she was raped by accused Nos.16 and 17. But when the other accused with similar allegations are already released on bail, I think it is not proper to deny bail to the petitioner alone. Hence, this bail application is allowed. 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 B.A.No.4348 of 2020 6 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 circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. 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 B.A.No.4348 of 2020 7 jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the . Investigating Officer as and when required The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 3. 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. 4. The petitioner shall surrender her passport before the Investigating Officer. If there is no passport, she will file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and B.A.No.4348 of 2020 8 Fridays at 10 a.m till final report is filed in this case. 6. 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** cms