Sanjai Lal v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.6774 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.953/2018 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SANJAI LAL AGED 30 YEARS POURNAMI, AYLARA P.O., YEROOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN : 691312 BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ARANMULA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN : 689533** ## **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, SR.ADV. FOR PETITIONER, SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No. 6774 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ===================== B.A.No. 6774 of 2020 ===================== Dated this the 27[th] day of October, 2020** ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No. 953 of 2018 of Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also under Section 67(a) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. 3. The prosecution case is that, the de facto complainant was an employee of the establishment called 'Ponnus Food Products' run by the petitioner's father. B.A.No. 6774 of 2020 3 While working there the de facto complainant fell in love with the petitioner. On the basis of promise to marry she had sexual contacts with the petitioner. Subsequently the petitioner withdrew the promise and thereby cheated the de facto complainant. This is the crux of the prosecution case. The alleged incident happened in October 2017. The complaint was filed in June 2018. 4. Heard the Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is aged 30 years and the victim is aged 28 years. The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences are not attracted. The senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, the allegations is that, there is a promise to marry and thereafter sexual intercourse. Subsequently the petitioner withdrew from the promise. The senior counsel for the petitioner relied the judgment of the Apex Court judgment in **Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Dr) Vs. State of** B.A.No. 6774 of 2020 4 **Maharashtra and others (2019 (1) KHC 403)** and **Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2019 KHC 6829).** The senior counsel submitted that, the petitioner and the victim are major. The senior counsel submitted that, there is a long delay in filing the complaint also. The senior counsel submitted that, the petitioner earlier filed a bail application before this Court as B.A. No. 1351 of 2020. At that time, the petitioner was not in India. This court was not inclined to entertain the bail application. Subsequently, the petitioner came back to India and now he is in India. The senior counsel submitted that, Annexures 2 and 3 are the relevant pages of his passport, which will show that the petitioner is in India. The senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in the light of the Apex Court in _**Kaini Rajan V. State of Kerala (2013 (9) SCC 113)**_ the contention of the B.A.No. 6774 of 2020 5 petitioner is unsustainable. 7. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner and the victim are major. The petitioner is aged 30 years and the victim is aged 28 years. The allegation is that, the victim gave consent for sexual intercourse, because there is a promise to marry her by the petitioner. The alleged incident happened in October 2017. The complaint was filed in June 2018. I do not want to make any observations about the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 8. 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 B.A.No. 6774 of 2020 6 number of inmates inside prisons. 9. 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. 10. 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 proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of_ B.A.No. 6774 of 2020 7 _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. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;_ _5. The 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;_ _6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of_ B.A.No. 6774 of 2020 8 _social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic._ _7. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays at 10.a.m. for a period of three months._ _8. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer at the time when he surrender before the Investigating Officer as per clause 1 of this order._ 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** LU