Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/22ND ASWINA, 1936** ## **Bail Appl..No. 7337 of 2014 ()** **------------------------------------------CRIME NO. 620/2014 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION , KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:** **------------------------------------------** **MURALEEDHARAN AGED 47 YEARS S/O.KUNHUKUNH, NEDUMANNIL VEEDU, P.O.ERAMAM THALIPARAMBA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK SRI.P.HAMZAKUTTY** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C. RASHEED** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** das ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------ ## B.A. No. 7337 of 2014 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 2014 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.620/2014 of Peingome Police Station, Kannur District for the offences registered under sections 3(1) r/w section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and section 376 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the petitioner as contained in the prosecution version is that he had sexually assaulted the defacto complainant, who is a minor girl aged 13 years, about six months back in her home. Sri. P.V. Surendranath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of all the allegations raised against him and that the incident occurred out of animosity born by the minor victim girl's mother against the petitioner. The case projected by the petitioner **-2-** ## **B.A. No. 7337 of 2014** is that the petitioner is the immediate neighbour of the family of the minor girl and that the mother of the girl is conducting grocery shop inside the house and entertaining lot of migrant labours from outside and providing liquor to them and the petitioner objected to the harassment by the migrant labours as against the minor girl and that resulted in animosity of the girl's mother against the petitioner and thus the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that these allegations are made only to enable the petitioner to wriggle out the allegations in the crime. More importantly, Sri. P.V. Surendranath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.08.2014 and that further custodial detention of the petitioner is not really warranted in this case and as the investigation is almost complete and no interest of the investigation is sub served by considering the ## **B.A. No. 7337 of 2014** **-3-** agony of prolonged custodial detention of the petitioner, since the petitioner is aged 47 years. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that the investigation is almost complete and that if this Court is inclined to grant regular bail the same may be added with stringent conditions so as to protect the interest of the prosecution and the interest of the minor victim girl. The prosecutor would urge that this court should place a condition that the petitioner shall not enter the precincts of Peringome Police Station, Kannur District until the filing of the final report in this case except for the purpose of compliance of the other conditions in this Order for a period of three months. He would urge that he has made the submission to ensure that the petitioner does not in any way influence or intimidate the victim of the victim's family as he is their immediate neighbour. **B.A. No. 7337 of 2014** **-4-** 5. Sri. P.V. Surendranath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would fairly submit that the petitioner would accept any of the conditions that is deemed reasonable and necessary by this Court, but he would only point out that the petitioner's daughter is now in an advanced stage of pregnancy and that in case he has to meet with any emergency in connection with pregnancy or hospitalization of his daughter, some relaxation in that regard may be granted so as to visit his house so as to take care of the needs of the family and that of his daughter in particular. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that this court may order that the petitioner may be so permitted in case of real emergency that may happen in the next three months by getting necessary permission of the Investigating Officer. 6. In this view of the matter this Court is inclined to hold that regular bail can be granted in this case, as the **B.A. No. 7337 of 2014** **-5-** petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.08.2014 and as he has been under custody for the last more than 62 days, his further custodial interrogation may not really be warranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case and to safeguard the purpose of the investigation, bail can be granted. 7. Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned (viz. Sessions Court, Thalassery) and subject to the following conditions: - i. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the aforementioned Sessions Judge at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, then he will file an affidavit to that effect in the said ## **B.A. No. 7337 of 2014** **-6-** court. If the petitioner requires his passport for travel abroad, he is at liberty to approach the local court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the Sessions Judge is at liberty to consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking sufficient guidance from the principles laid down by this Court in the case **Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala** reported in 2009(2) KLT 712, not withstanding the above said conditions imposed by this Court. ii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.620/2014 of Peringome Police Station between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on every alternate Sundays. ## **B.A. No. 7337 of 2014** **-7-** - iii. The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation in any manner. - iv. The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper the evidence in any manner whatsoever. - v. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation and report before the aforementioned Investigating Officer as and when required by him. - vi. The petitioner shall not enter the territorial limits of the Peringome Police Station, Kannur District for a period of three months except for the purpose of compliance of the other conditions. However it is made clear that in case the petitioner has any genuine requirement to visit his house in connection **B.A. No. 7337 of 2014** **-8-** with the pregnancy and hospitalization of his daughter or for any other bonafide needs of the family he can approach the Investigating Officer pointing out the requirement, in which case the Investigating Officer is directed to consider such request fairly and reasonably and take necessary action in granting such permission if warranted. If the petitioner violates any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. In terms of the above said directions, this Bail Application stands finally disposed of. Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. To Judge jjj