Ramla N.P. v State of Kerala (Bail Applications Nos. 7283 and 7284 of 2020)

BA Nos.7283 & 7284 of 2020 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.7283 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.377/2020 OF Nileswar Police Station, Kasargod** ## **PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:** **RAMLA N.P, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.ABOOBACKER, SEA ROAD, THAIKADAPPURAM, NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN-671314** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT 3 XXXX AGED 15 YEARS XXXXXXXX PIN - 671314** **R3 BY ADV. SHRI.VIVEK.P.K SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7284/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** BA Nos.7283 & 7284 of 2020 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942** **Bail Appl..No.7284 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.381/2020 OF Nileswar Police Station , Kasargod** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **RAMLA N.P, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.ABOOBACKER, SEA ROAD, THAIKADAPPURAM, NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN-671314** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD PIN-671314** **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7283/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** BA Nos.7283 & 7284 of 2020 3 ## **O R D E R** **[ Bail Appl..7283/2020, Bail Appl..7284/2020 ] Dated this the 11th day of November 2020** These Bail Applications filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code were heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the 3[rd] accused in Crime No.381/2020 and 4[th] accused in Crime No.377/2020 of Nileswar Police Station. She filed bail applications in the above crimes as B.A.Nos.7284/2020 and 7283/2020. Since the allegation against the petitioner in both the cases are one and the same, I am disposing these bail applications by a common order. Both the above cases are registered against the petitioner and the other accused alleging the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)(f), 376(3), 312, 313, 109 IPC and offences under Sections 5(J), (l), (n) r/w Section 6, Section 19(1) r/w Section 21 of POCSO Act. Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is also alleged against the accused in these cases. 3. The prosecution case is that the 1[st] accused in this case, who is the father of the victim girl, committed sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault to the victim girl. Thereafter with the BA Nos.7283 & 7284 of 2020 4 knowledge of the father, others also committed penetrative sexual assault towards the victim girl, who is a minor aged 15 years. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. When the bail application came up for consideration, since the offence under Section 376(3) IPC is also alleged against the petitioner, this Court passed the following order: “The learned Public Prosecutor will instruct the investigating officer to give a notice to the victim in this case informing that the bail application is posted for final hearing on 11.11.2020. Registry will forward a copy of this order through e-mail to the Advocate General Office today itself.” 5. Now the Public Prosecutor submitted that the notice is served to the victim. There is no appearance for the victim. 6. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that evenif the entire allegations are accepted, there is no allegation against the petitioner, who is the mother of the victim. The only offence alleged against the petitioner is that she committed the offence under Section 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act. The counsel submitted that Section 19 of the POCSO Act deals about the BA Nos.7283 & 7284 of 2020 5 reporting of offence and Section 21 says about the punishment for failure to report or record a case. The counsel submitted that the maximum punishment that can be imposed under Section 21 of the POCSO Act is only six months. The maximum punishment that can imposed under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act is one year. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is suffering with some mental illness. She is undergoing treatment and Annexures 3 and 4 are the treatment certificates of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant her bail. 8. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the statement of the victim, it is clear that the mother knows about the pregnancy of the victim and the mother went along with the victim to meet the Gynecologist. The Public Prosecutor submitted that even then the petitioner has not reported the crime. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the offences alleged against the petitioner is only under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act. 9. After hearing both sides, I think, these bail applications can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner is the mother of the victim. The victim gave statement to the police in the presence of the petitioner and her brother. The BA Nos.7283 & 7284 of 2020 6 brother of the petitioner filed an affidavit before this Court saying that she has no grievance against the petitioner. The father of the victim is an accused. He is even now in custody. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she has not reported the crime. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the maximum punishment than can be imposed under Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the POCSO Act is only one year. Moreover, a perusal of Annexure 3 will show that a Professor of Psychiatry, Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram certified that the petitioner is under his treatment and she is diagnosed as having Psychosis. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 10. 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 COVID-19 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 inside prisons. 11. 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)** BA Nos.7283 & 7284 of 2020 7 **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. 12. 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 appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, she shall be released on bail 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. 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. 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. BA Nos.7283 & 7284 of 2020 8 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected. 6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic. 7. 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** **ab**