High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-11-10Bail allowed with stringent conditions

Ravi v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.7395 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2020-11-10
Court Decision / Holding: The court grants bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions: (i) bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; (ii) appearance before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Erumapetty Police Station; (iv) shall not commit other offences; (v) shall strictly abide by governmental COVID-19 and social distancing guidelines; (vi) the Investigating Officer shall inform the victim/parents about any threat, and the bail may be canceled if such threats arise; (vii) failure to comply with conditions allows cancellation of bail; (viii) ongoing cooperation with the investigation.
Final Disposition: Bail allowed with stringent conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ravi

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.E.A.Haris

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Renjith.T.R., PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC before the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) filed by Ravi, the accused in Erumapetty Police Station, Thrissur’s Crime No. 586/2020. The petitioner faces offences under IPC sections 363 (kidnapping), 377 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The prosecution alleges that the 15-year-old victim was sexually abused during the 2019 school annual day and again during the 2020 SSLC examinations; the FIR was lodged on 15.09.2020 and the accused was arrested on 16.09.2020. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting that while the victim’s statements need not be disbelieved, the delay in reporting is explained, and the gravity of the offences requires caution. The court reiterates that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and emphasizes the victim’s protection amid COVID-19 considerations. It ultimately grants bail on stringent conditions: the bond is Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; the petitioner must appear before the IO; may not leave the jurisdiction of Erumapetty Police Station; must not commit similar offences; must comply with COVID-19 guidelines; and the bail can be canceled if threatened or conditions are breached.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure CodeSections 363, 377, 506 IPCSections 3, 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception
The basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception; court must ensure the opportunity of a fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused was arrested on 16.09.2020 and has remained in custody since; the alleged offences occurred in 2019 and the complaint was filed on 15.09.2020 after the victim sought counselling. He argued that delay in reporting does not ipso facto negate the presumption of innocence or render the victim’s statements unreliable at this stage, especially as the investigation is ongoing. The defense urged that bail be granted with stringent conditions to protect the victim and ensure a fair trial, noting the lack of prior offences by the petitioner and the need to balance rights with public interest, including COVID-19 considerations. He also contended that bail would be consistent with the Court’s general bail jurisprudence and would align with social distancing directives in prisons.

Contentions of Respondents

Public Prosecutor opposed bail, contending that the offences are grave and involve a minor. While the victim’s statements need not be disbelieved at this stage, the delay cannot be ignored. The prosecution argued for protective conditions if bail is granted to prevent intimidation or influence over witnesses and to ensure the ongoing investigation proceeds unhindered. It emphasized that the court must safeguard the victim’s welfare in light of COVID-19 guidelines and balance with the accused’s presumption of innocence.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to support social distancing guidelines in prisons during COVID-19.
Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Used to reinforce bail principle that bail is the rule, jail is the exception.
W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	W.P(C) No.9400 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Full Bench directions on minimizing prison population during COVID-19.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ravi v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.7395 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.586/2020 OF Erumapetty Police Station , Thrissur** ## **PETITIONER:** **RAVI AGED 51 YEARS SON OF VELAYUDHAN, ATTARAPPILLY HOUSE, MANGADU, KOTTAPURAM P.O, ERUMAPETTY. THRISSUR, PIN-680 584** **BY ADV. SRI.E.A.HARIS** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUKAM, PIN-682031** ## **SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.7395 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- ## B.A.No.7395 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of November, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.586 of 2020 of Erumapetty Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 377 and 506 IPC. The offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act') is also alleged. 3. The prosecution case is that at the time of annual day celebration in School 2019 the victim aged 15 year old has been sexually abused by the petitioner. Subsequently, during the time of SSLC examination in 2020, the petitioner sexually abused the victim boy. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. B.A.No.7395 of 2020 3 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 16.9.2020. He is in custody from that date onwards. The counsel submitted that the alleged incident happened in 2019 and the complaint was filed only on 15.9.2020. 6. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of the victim boy need not be disbelieved by this Court at this stage. The Public Prosecutor made available the First Information Statement. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay caused in filing the complaint is well explained in the First Information Statement. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner gave the First Information Statement after approaching the counselling center with the help of his friends. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. B.A.No.7395 of 2020 4 7. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. Simply because there is some delay in lodging a complaint, a statement given by a boy aged 15 years need not be disbelieved by this Court at this stage. Of course, it is a matter to be proved by the prosecution at the time of trial. But one aspect is that the petitioner is in custody from 16.9.2020 onwards. But of course the interest of the victim also should be protected. Therefore, there can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit of Erumapetty Police Station till final report is filed in Crime No.586 of 2020. If there is any threat from the side of the petitioner, the victim boy can approach the police and the police can file a petition to cancel the bail of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer will inform the victim or his parents about this condition in the bail order. With this observation, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the detention period of the petitioner, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent B.A.No.7395 of 2020 5 conditions. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 B.A.No.7395 of 2020 6 directions: 1. 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. 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. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, B.A.No.7395 of 2020 7 or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. 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. 6. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Erumapetty Police Station, till the investigation in Crime No.586 of 2020. 7. The Investigating Officer will inform the victim or his parents about the condition that if there is any threat from the side of the petitioner, this bail bail order will be cancelled and the victim or his parents are free to approach the Investigating Officer if any such threat came from the petitioner. In such situation the Investigating Officer can B.A.No.7395 of 2020 8 approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. 8. 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. Issue a copy of this order to the office of the Advocate General. The Public Prosecutor will give a copy of this order to the Investigating Officer. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** cms