Shibu K.V. 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. 7794 of 2014 ()** **------------------------------CRIME NO. 424/2014 OF KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT** **---------------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **SHIBU K.V., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KOOLOTHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, NADUVIL P.O., NADUVILA AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTG:** **---------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.THROUGH SHO, KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R. REMA** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== B.A.Nos. 7794 of 2014** ## **================= Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2014** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.424/2014 of Kudiyanmala Police Station in Kannur District registered for offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that Deepa, the de facto complainant aged 21 years, who belongs to scheduled tribe and the petitioner were coolie workers working together and that the de facto complainant is unmarried and she is having one child and that on 27/2/2014 night when the mother and the child of the de facto complainant went for a temple festival, the petitioner came to her house and raped her by giving a promise to marry. It is further alleged that on subsequent days also B.A. No.7794/2014 2 they had sexual intercourse and that the de facto complainant is now two months pregnant and that the first information statement in this case was lodged on 25/9/2014. The petitioner was arrested by the police and was remanded thereafter and continues to be under judicial custodial detention for the last about 40 days. Petitioner's application for regular bail was rejected by the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court. 3. It is submitted by Sri.V.A.Satheesh learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and the case was falsely foisted on him and that he would comply with any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He also submitted that investigation in this case is completed and further custodial detention of the petitioner is unmoral and he pressed for grant of bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that investigation is almost over and that in case this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, sufficient stringent B.A. No.7794/2014 3 conditions may be placed so that the petitioner does not get any possibility of having access to the de facto complainant so as to avoid the possibility of any intimidation or influencing her and to protect the interest of the prosecution. 5. Having considered 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 regular bail to the petitioner, but hedged with stringent conditions so as to ensure that the petitioner does not have any access to the de facto complainant and so as to avoid possibility of any intimidation or influence. 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; B.A. No.7794/2014 4 _i). Petitioner shall not enter or reside within the territorial limits of the Taluk concerned within whose area the de facto complainant is residing for a period of one year or until the submission of the final report whichever is later, except for the purpose of compliance with the other conditions in the order._ _ii) 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 may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass_ B.A. No.7794/2014 5 _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._ _iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver nature._ _iv) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever._ _v) 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 B.A. No.7794/2014 6 aforementioned conditions, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** _dpk_ B.A. No.7794/2014 7