Sajeer v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2014-11-04
Court Decision / Holding: The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions: Rs.35,000 bail bond with two solvent sureties of the like amount; prohibition from entering the taluk where the complainant resides until trial (except for compliance with other conditions); deployment of a woman police constable (not in uniform) at the complainant’s residence for six months to monitor for threats, with reporting to the court and possible cancellation of bail if concerns persist; surrender of passport within three days to the jurisdictional Magistrate, with liberty to seek release of passport for travel abroad upon proper application and merits; prohibition on involvement in any similar or more serious offence; prohibition on influencing or tampering with witnesses; full cooperation with investigation; non-compliance would render bail liable to cancellation. The decision notes the investigation is nearly complete and relies on the possibility of further monitoring and guidance from precedent such as Asok Kumar v State of Kerala regarding passport-related issues.
Final Disposition: Bail Granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sajeer

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Mathew KuriaKose

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. R. Rema

Case Synopsis & Summary

Sajeer, the sole accused in Crime No. 328/2014 of Kambalakkad Police Station, Wayanad, faced charges under IPC sections 450 and 376, later augmented with 363 and 506(1). The prosecution alleges rape of a married woman aged 38 at her residence on 6 August 2014. He has remained in judicial custody since 8 August 2014, about 88 days by the time of hearing. The defense argued that investigation is complete and the petitioner is entitled to regular bail, as further custodial detention is unnecessary. The State contended that the investigation is nearing completion and final report will be filed soon, and if bail is granted, stringent safeguards must be imposed to prevent threats or intimidation of the complainant or witnesses. After considering the submissions and the totality of facts, the court found the investigation nearly complete and the petitioner’s extended detention unwarranted. It granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure safety and protect witnesses: prohibition from entering the complainant’s taluk residence until trial, deployment of a woman police constable at the complainant’s residence for six months to assess threats, surrender of passport (with express provision for travel on court terms), prohibition on involvement in similar offences, no influence or tampering with witnesses, and full cooperation with investigation. The bail may be cancelled for non-compliance. The court cited Asok Kumar v State of Kerala for passport-related guidance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 450 IPCSection 376 IPCSection 363 IPCSection 506(1) IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner argued that investigation is complete and the petitioner has already undergone 88 days in custody; therefore, he should be released on regular bail. Since further custodial interrogation is unnecessary, bail with stringent safeguards should be granted to prevent contact with the complainant and to protect witnesses, while allowing the accused to assist in the remaining proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is almost complete and the final report will be filed soon; if bail is granted, stringent conditions are essential to prevent threats or intimidation of the complainant or witnesses, and to ensure adherence to the investigation and trial process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Asok Kumar v State of Kerala	2009(2) KLT 712	Mentioned Only	Cited to guide passport-related considerations; not a binding basis for the bail order, but referenced for travel/issue of passport provisions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **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. 7292 of 2014 ()** **------------------------------CRIME NO. 328/2014 OF KAMBALAKKAD POLICE STATION , WAYANAD DISTRICT** **--------------------** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **--------------------------------------** **SAJEER, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, AAROLI VEEDU, PINANGODE, VENGAPPALLY AMSOM, WAYANADU DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO. 328/2014 OF KAMBALAKKAD POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **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:** **sts** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== B.A.No.7292 of 2014** ## **================= Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2014** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.328/2014 of Kambalakkad Police Station in Wayanad District registered for offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, offence under Section 363 and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code have also been added in the above crime. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 6/8/2014 at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioner had committed rape on the defacto complainant, who is a married lady aged 38 years, by trespassing into the quarters where she is residing with her family. During the investigation, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 8/8/2014 and has been under custodial detention for the last 88 days. 3. Sri.Mathew Kuriakose learned counsel for the 2 B.A. No.7292/2014 petitioner would submit that investigation is completed and the benefit of the regular bail may be granted to the petitioner as he has already been under the custodial detention for the last more than 88 days and that further custodial investigation is not required as the investigation is completed long ago. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that investigation is almost completed and the final formalities for submission of the final report will be completed shortly and in case this Court is inclined to grant benefit of regular bail to the petitioner, then stringent conditions may be imposed, so that the petitioner does not have any access to the defacto complainant as otherwise he is likely to threating or intimidating her or other persons concerned. 5. After hearing 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 hold that, as the B.A. No.7292/2014 3 investigation is almost completed and the petitioner has been under judicial custody for the last 88 days, the benefit of regular bail can be granted to him, but only on stringent conditions so as to ensure that the petitioner does not have any access to the defacto complainant and so as to avoid any possibility of his threatening or intimidating her or any other witness in the locality. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent 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 is residing until the conclusion of the trial except for the purpose of compliance with the other conditions in the order._ B.A. No.7292/2014 4 _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 threating or disturbing action from the petitioner. If the Investigating Officer, after conducting due enquiries, is convinced about the correctness of such allegation raised in that regard, then he shall file an appropriate report and necessarily application in this process 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 after 6 months need not be continued, 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,_ B.A. No.7292/2014 5 _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 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._ B.A. No.7292/2014 6 _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._ 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.7292/2014 7 B.A. No.7292/2014 8