Riju s/o Rabi v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/13TH KARTHIKA, 1936** ## **Bail Appl..No. 7504 of 2014 ()** **------------------------------CRIME NO. 731/2014 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM --------------------** ## **PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :** **-------------------------------------------** **RIJU, S/O.RABI, AGED 28 YEARS VADAKKARUKU VEEDU, NEAR MULAYAMTHANNI TEMPLE NELLIMOODU, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER SRI.JELSON J. EDAMPADAM SRI.R. RADHAKRISHNAN (VYTILA)** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :** **----------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING ERNAKULAM** **(INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR POLICE STATION).** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== B.A.No.7504 of 2014** ## **================= Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2014** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.731/2014 of Poovar Police Station in Thiruvananathapuram District registered for offences punishable under Sections 376,363,366A,342,506(i),109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution version is that the 1[st] accused promising to marry the defacto complainant, had sexual relations with her and that after undergoing some form of marriage secretly between the 1[st] accused and the defacto complainant, they lived together and that on 25/4/2014 the 1[st] accused had compelled to get into the bike of the petitioner, who in turn had taken the defacto complainant to his house and alleged to have attempted to rape her. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner 2 B.A. No.7504/2014 Sri.Priappancode V.S.Sudheer would submit that the allegation is falsely foisted on the petitioner and that he would further submit that the petitioner was remanded on 24/8/2014 and he has been under custodial detention for the last 72 days and that investigation of the case is completed and, therefore, it is prayed that bail may be granted to the petitioner and that the petitioner is willing to comply with any stringent conditions that may be placed before this Court to protect the interest of the prosecution. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit about the registration of the crime and investigation of the case. He would further submit that investigation is almost completed and the investigation would reveal that not only the first accused, but also the 2[nd] accused, viz.the petitioner herein, has committed rape on the defacto complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that in case this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has been under custodial detention for the B.A. No.7504/2014 3 last 72 days, necessary stringent conditions may be placed so as to ensure that the victim girl is not in any way intimidated or influenced by the petitioner. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner as the petitioner has been under custodial detention for the last 72 days and as the investigation is almost completed. However, this Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to impose stringent conditions to ensure that the petitioner does not get any access to the victim girl so as to avoid possibility of the petitioner threating and influencing her in any manner. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent B.A. No.7504/2014 4 sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below concerned and on subject to the following conditions; _i). Petitioner shall not enter or reside within the territorial limits of the Taluk concerned within whose area the de facto complainant/victim is residing until the conclusion of the trial except for the purpose of compliance with the other conditions in the order or for meeting the other requirement in the other case in that Taluk._ _ii). The Investigating Officer shall depute a woman police constable (not in uniform) to the residence of the defacto complainant for a period of six months from today so as to ascertain from her as to whether she is facing any threatening or disturbing action from the petitioner. If the Investigating Officer, after conducting due enquiries, is convinced about the correctness of such allegation that may be brought to his notice, then he shall file an appropriate report and necessary application in this_ B.A. No.7504/2014 5 _proceedings before this Court for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. It is further ordered that after such assessment, if the investigating officer feels that the practice of deputing a woman police constable need not be continued after six months, he is at liberty to do so. But, if he finds that this practice should be continued for a further period, he is at liberty to do so also._ _iii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if he is not a holder of passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he shall approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case_ B.A. No.7504/2014 6 _may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case_ _**Asok Kumar v State of Kerala,** (2009(2) KLT 712), notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court._ _iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver nature._ _v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever._ _vi) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him._ B.A. No.7504/2014 7 If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforementioned conditions, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** _dpk_ B.A. No.7504/2014 8