Praveen (Accused No.1) v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.5462 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.974/2020 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **PRAVEEN AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, PANANAYIL HOUSE, KOTHAPARAMBU.P.O, KODUNGALLUR THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680668** **BY ADVS. SRI.PRASUN.S SRI.N.A.RETHEESH** ## **- RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT STATE:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031** **BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **B.A.NO.5462 OF 2020 2** ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 8th day of September 2020** ... **This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.974 of 2020 of Mathilakom Police Station, Thrissur District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offences under Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act are also alleged against the petitioner.** **3. The prosecution case is that, the victim aged 11 years, who is the son of the petitioner visited his house to receive the balance maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- on 3.3.2020 at 3 p.m. The** ## **B.A.NO.5462 OF 2020 3** **prosecution case is that, the accused pulled him into the bedroom, closed the room and he got denuded himself and laid over a lady, who was laying naked in the bed and had sexual intercourse. Second accused is that lady. The victim closed his eyes. It is alleged that, the accused told the victim to tell her mother about the same.** **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner had approached this Court with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This Court dismissed that bail application with a direction to him to surrender before the investigating officer. Annexure-8 is the said order. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer as directed by this Court on 19.8.2020. Thereafter, the investigating officer produced the petitioner before the court concerned. But the court concerned as per Annexure-9 order rejected the bail application of** ## **B.A.NO.5462 OF 2020 4** **the petitioner and the 2[nd] accused was granted bail. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is in custody from 19.8.2020 onwards. The counsel also submitted that, a false complaint is filed against the petitioner at the instance of his former wife. The counsel submitted that, several matrimonial disputes are there between the petitioner and the mother of the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor, even though opposed this bail application, submitted that, if this Court is granting bail to the petitioner, stringent conditions may be imposed.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed, on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. The maximum punishment that can be** **B.A.NO.5462 OF 2020 5** **imposed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is three years. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act is also three years. The petitioner is in custody from 19.8.2020 onwards. Moreover, there is some matrimonial dispute pending between the petitioner and the mother of the defacto complainant. The petitioner has got a case that this is a false case. I do not want to make any observations about the merit of this case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, 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 COVID19 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 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates** **B.A.NO.5462 OF 2020 6** **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. The 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 jurisdictional Court;** **B.A.NO.5462 OF 2020 7** **2. The 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;** **3. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;** **4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected;** **5. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued** **B.A.NO.5462 OF 2020 8** **by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid** **19 pandemic;** **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** **pkk** **JUDGE**