N.P. Manoj v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 19TH VAISAKHA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3522 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** N.P. MANOJ AGED 50 YEARS S/O. N P PUSHPANGATHAN, NEDIYEDATH HOUSE, ELATHURUTH P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680611 BY ADVS. E.VIJIN KARTHIK SUJESH MENON V.B. ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682031 BY ADV. T V NEEMA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.3522 of 2023 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------** B.A.No.3522 of 2023 **------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of May, 2023** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.387/2023 of Thrissur Town West Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 509 of IPC and Section 11(i) r/w Section 12 of the POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution case is that, the complainant who is aged 12 years was sexually harassed by the accused. The complainant is a student and resides with her parents and elder B.A.No.3522 of 2023 3 brother. According to the complainant, she used to study regularly sitting at a small room adjacent to dining room which has a door opening to the side of the house. It is stated that the said door was kept open while she was studying. It is alleged that, while the complainant was sitting in the room during the 2[nd] week of February 2023 a person came there and unzipped his pants and urinated. It is stated that the said person repeated the same on several occasions and hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, it is a false case foisted against the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the defacto complainant 4 B.A.No.3522 of 2023 is the daughter of the land lord of the petitioner. Litigations are pending before the Court between the petitioner and the father of the defacto complainant. Because of the same, this false case is foisted against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand seriously opposed the Bail application. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court perused the Annexures produced along with the Bail application. A suit is filed by the petitioner against the father of the defacto complainant alleging that there is obstruction from him for the smooth functioning of the petitioner's Tea shop. There is an injunction order also in favour of the petitioner. It is also stated by the petitioner that the land lord who is B.A.No.3522 of 2023 5 the father of the defacto complainant blocked the water supply and snapped the electricity supply to the tenanted premises and hence the petitioner approached the Civil court and also the Police. The counsel also takes me through Annexure A4 report of the Advocate Commissioner. It is submitted that the alleged incident happened after filing the Civil case. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, the bail application can be allowed after imposing stringent conditions. 6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the ## B.A.No.3522 of 2023 6 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. 7. 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 appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating B.A.No.3522 of 2023 7 Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on 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. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence B.A.No.3522 of 2023 **==> picture [6 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; 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** DM