## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1941**
**BAIL APPL.NO.5891 OF 2019**
**CRIME NO.816/2019 OF RANNI POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA**
## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:**
**PRAKASH PHILIPOSE @ PRAKASH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE PHILIPOSE, MODIYIL VEEDU, CHERUKULANJI POST, VADASSERIKKARA, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 673.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.R.SREEHARI & SRI.R.VENUGOPAL**
## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:**
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
|---|---|
||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**|
||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,**|
||**THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,**|
||**RANNY POLICE STATION, RANNY TALUK,**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 672.**|
|**2**|**BINEESHA DEENA PRAKASH,**|
||**20 YEARS, D/O.NISHA PRAKASH,**|
||**MODIYIL VEEDU, CHERUKULANJI POST,**|
||**VADASSERIKKARA, RANNY TALUK,**|
||**PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 673.**|
||**SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**|
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------B.A. No. 5891 of 2019 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of August, 2019
## O R D E R
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Anx.A1 Crime No.816/2019 of Ranny Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.376(2)(f) of the IPC, on the basis of FIS given by lady defacto complainant on 17.6.2019 at about 6.50 pm in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened for the period from 1.7.2018 to 7.6.2019.
2. The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner aged 45 years is the father of the lady victim now aged 20 years, and that on a day in July, 2018 when she was alone in the house, the petitioner had come there and forced her to lie down on a cot and removed her dresses and had forcible sexual relationship with her, and that out of fear and shame she did not disclose this to anybody as she was threatened by her father. Later the petitioner used to constantly harass her by touching her body when she was
B.A. No. 5891 of 2019
..3..
alone, and that on 7.6.2019 he had again committed forcible sexual intercourse on her and out of fear she had earlier not informed the police, etc.
3. Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and motivated, and as a matter of fact, the petitioner being her father had admonished her to stop a love affair with a young man, and it is out of this animosity, the victim has made the false allegations as late as on 17.6.2019 in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened in the year 2018. Further the counsel for the petitioner would point out that there are no specific allegations that the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse on the victim, and all what is alleged in the FIS is “കടട്ടിലട്ടിൽ കട് **ട** ിതത്തീ എനന്നെ ബലമമായട്ടി ലലഗട്ടികമമായട്ടി പത്തീഡട്ടിപട്ടിച.”
4. Learned Prosecutor has submitted that subsequently the lady victim has given her statement before the learned Magistrate under Sec.164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that the petitioner had committed penetrative sexual assault on her, etc.
5. On being queried about the results of the medical examination of the victim, learned Prosecutor has made available
B.A. No. 5891 of 2019
..4..
the copy of the medical examination report given by the Doctor in respect of the medication examination of the victim on 18.6.2019. It is alleged in the FIS that the last incident was on 7.6.2019. The Doctor has recorded the version of lady victim about the above incidents. However on Page 5 Serial No.9, it is certified by the Doctor that _“Hymen:Intact”_ . In Serial No.12 given on Page 6 of the report in respect of _“Vagina”_ , it is recorded by the Doctor as _“Not Seen”._ The handwriting of the Doctor in that regard is not legible and it appears that the words used by her are _“Not Seen”_ . It is not known to this Court as to what exactly is the meaning and relevance of said observation. It is also to be noted that the Doctor has not noted any injuries in the genital/vaginal area. In the concluding part the Doctor has recorded in Page 9 of said Report that _“As hymen intact vaginal swab and smear not collected”._ Further on Page 10 it is reported by the Doctor that _“The injuries on the body could have sustained as alleged”._ In the light of the abovesaid details given by the Doctor mentioned herein above this Court is not in a position to appreciate how the Doctor has opined in Page 10 of the Report that her findings of
B.A. No. 5891 of 2019
..5..
examination are consistent with the history of alleged sexual assault, more particularly as the Doctor has certified that the _hymen_ is intact.
6. Counsel for the petitioner would fervently urge that the petitioner is innocent, and that only on account of false ego issues that the victim who is his daughter is making false allegations, as the petitioner had admonished her, etc.
7. The lady victim is now aged 22 years, and the last incident is said to have happened on 7.6.2019, even though the first incident is said to have happened in July, 2018. In the light of the abovesaid report of the Doctor regarding the medical examination of the victim, and also taking into account the fact that there is delay in lodging the FIS only on 17.6.2019 even though the first incident is said to have taken place in July, 2018, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner never be really warranted and justified for effectuating smooth conduct of investigation. However the petitioner will have to fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conduct of investigation process.
B.A. No. 5891 of 2019
..6..
8. Learned Prosecutor has cautioned this Court that as the petitioner is none other than the father of the victim, there is strong possibility of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses including the lady victim if the petitioner is let out on bail.
9. The said apprehension of the prosecution has to be duly addressed by placing necessary safeguards as conditions in the grant of bail. Accordingly the following directions and orders are passed:
- _i. The petitioner will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.816/2019 of Ranny Police Station for interrogation purposes at any rate by 10 am on any day on or before 6.9.2019._
- _ii. The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conduct of the above interrogation process._
- _iii. If the Investigating Officer insist that the petitioner should undergo potency test, etc, he should co-operate in that regard, also._
- _iv. If the abovesaid process is not over on a single day, it will be open to the Investigating Officer to insist that the petitioner should appear on the next available working day or any other suitable day that may be fixed by him, which the petitioner will comply._
- _v. After the interrogation process is over, in case the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the_
B.A. No. 5891 of 2019
..7..
_abovesaid crime, then he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned._
## 10. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-
- _i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature._
- _ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation._
- _iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection._
- _iv. The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever._
- _v. The petitioner shall not go or visit anywhere near the residence or educational institution or workplace of the lady victim until the conclusion of trial._
- _vi. The petitioner shall not enter into or reside within the territorial limits of the Police Station within whose limits the residence or educational institution or workplace of the lady victim is situated until the conclusion of investigation process, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer concerned in this crime or any other crimes, or for attending to the Court in relation to this case or any other cases or for contacting his lawyers/advocates concerned._
- _vii. However if on account of any emergent personal need the petitioner wants to visit the said area, he may do so but only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned._
B.A. No. 5891 of 2019
..8..
If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
MMG
