Praveen v. State of Kerala

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3590 OF 2024 CRIME NO.2111/2023 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2024 IN SC NO.318 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (ATROCITIES & SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` PRAVEEN, AGED 24 YEARS S/O BABY, RESIDING AT PRAVEEN BHAVAN, PANNIMALA, IRUPPUVALI, VELLARADA, KOOTHALI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 673525 ``` ``` BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN ``` ``` RESPONDENT: ``` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.3590/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 4[th] day of June, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.2111/2023 of the Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 342, 354, 354B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 read with Section 3(a), 6 read with Section 5(n), 8 read with Section 7 & 10 read with Section 9(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner was arrested on 11.01.2024. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that: on 06.12.2023, when the victim, who on the date of the incident was of 16 years of age and studying in the 10[th] standard of the Government Girl’s Higher Secondary School, visited her grandfather’s house along with her _B.A.No.3590/2024_ _-:3:-_ sisters, the accused, who is the sister’s son of her grandfather, took the photographs of the victim and her sisters on his mobile phone. After the birthday celebration, when the victim went to sleep, at around 02.15 hours on the following morning, the accused sent a message to the victim on her mobile phone and asked the victim to go to bedroom. Following the accused’s instructions, the victim went over to the bedroom. Then, the accused locked the door and forcefully caught hold of the victim and had penetrated sexual intercourse with her. Hence, the accused had committed aggravated sexual assault. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.L.Rajesh Narayan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner _B.A.No.3590/2024_ _-:4:-_ submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. There are no incriminating materials to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last nearly five months, the investigation in the case is complete, and the final report has been laid. Therefore, the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime very by committing penetrative sexual assault on the victim. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. He may also influence the witnesses, because he is a relative of the victim. Nonetheless, he conceded to the fact that the investigation in the case _B.A.No.3590/2024_ _-:5:-_ is complete, and the final report has been laid before the jurisdictional court on 30.01.2024, and the case is now pending as S.C.No.318/2024 before the jurisdictional court. 6. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be deciphered that the petitioner allegedly committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, who was 16 years of age. The petitioner was arrested on 11.01.2024, which is nearly five months. The fact remains that the investigation in the case is complete, and the final report has been laid. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail _B.A.No.3590/2024_ _-:6:-_ solely on the ground of former conduct. 8. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. The principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception is on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the charge sheet is filed, a strong case has to be made out for continuing a person in judicial custody. The right to bail cannot be denied merely due to the sentiments of the society. 10. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody _B.A.No.3590/2024_ _-:7:-_ for the last five months, the investigation in the case is complete and the final report has been laid and the case is now ripe for trial, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; - (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure 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 or tamper _B.A.No.3590/2024_ _-:8:-_ with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; - (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (v) The petitioner shall not enter the Taluk where the victim and the witnesses are residing; - (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. - (vii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. - (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within _B.A.No.3590/2024_ _-:9:-_ the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/04.06.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge