Sakthidaran v. State of Kerala

BA No.4209 of 2025 1 ``` 2025:KER:28744 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4209 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.285/2025 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THRISSUR`** ## **`PETITIONER( S ) :`** ``` SAKTHIDARAN AGED 56 YEARS, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE,THRISSUR RURAL,KERALA, PIN - 680681 ``` ``` BY ADVS. AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY P.M.RAFIQ(K/45/2001) M.REVIKRISHNAN(K/1268/2004) AJEESH K.SASI(K/166/2006) SRUTHY N. BHAT(K/000579/2017) RAHUL SUNIL(K/000608/2017) SRUTHY K.K(K/117/2015) SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.(K/1395/2020) NANDITHA S.(K/000498/2024) K.ARAVIND MENON(K/217/2021) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S ) :`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR PP-NOUSHAD K A ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` BA No.4209 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28744 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------** **BA No.4209 of 2025** **-------------------------------------------Dated this the 03[rd] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.285/2025 of Kaipamangalam Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act). 3. The prosecution case is that, in the year 2021, the complainant’s daughter aged 12 years, BA No.4209 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28744` started to vomit and felt fatigued. The accused noticing the same, escorted her to the complainant’s house. He took her to the wash room. Washed her face and then led her to a bedroom where he made her lie down. Subsequently, he engaged in inappropriate and abusive acts by placing his tongue inside her mouth and trying to insert his hand into her shorts. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is long delay in filing the complaint. The counsel submitted that it is a false case foisted against the petitioner. According to the petitioner civil and criminal cases are pending between the parties and this false case is filed at the instance of BA No.4209 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28744 ``` the defacto complainant and others. 6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He also submitted that there is criminal antecedents to the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, according to the defacto complainant, the alleged incident in this case happened in the year 2021. The complaint is filed in the year 2025. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence alleged is 5 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer for two days consecutively from 10.00 AM to 04.00 PM, so that the procedure can be completed. Thereafter, if arrest is recorded, there can be a direction to release the petitioner on bail. BA No.4209 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28744` 8. 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. 9. Recently the Apex Court in _**Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another** [2021(5)KHC 353]_ considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder. “12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation BA No.4209 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28744` becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” ## 10. In _**Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of**_ _**Investigation** [2023 KHC 6961],_ the Apex Court observed that, even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. BA No.4209 of 2025 7 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28744 ``` Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: _1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for two days consecutively from 10.00 AM to 4.00 PM._ _2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on 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 arresting officer concerned._ BA No.4209 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28744 ``` _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._ _5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected._ BA No.4209 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28744 ``` _6. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in_ _**Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also._ _7. Needless to mention, it would be well within 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]._ _8. If any of the above conditions are_ BA No.4209 of 2025 10 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28744 ``` _violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though this bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated._ **Sd/-** nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**