High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-06Bail granted

Suneesh A P v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-05-06
Court Decision / Holding: This Bail Application is allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Conditions include: appearance before the Investigating Officer as required; cooperation with the investigation; not leaving India without permission; not committing a similar offence; not entering the Bakel Police Station jurisdiction for 90 days or until final report is filed; disclosure of the place of residence and contact details to the IO within 4 days of release. If any condition is violated, the bail may be canceled by the jurisdictional Court. The decision cites the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, aligned with the Supreme Court decision in Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870).
Final Disposition: Bail granted

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Suneesh A P

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Sri. Sanal P. Raj, Sr. Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sherry J. Thomas
• Joemon Antony

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Sanal P. Raj, Sr. Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Bail Application (BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022) was heard by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on 6 May 2022. The petitioner, Suneesh A P, is the accused in Crime No. 282/2022 of Bekal Police Station, Kasargod, charged under Section 376 IPC for alleged rape of a de facto complainant who is 18 years old. Arrested on 25 March 2022, the petitioner challenges the necessity of continued incarceration and seeks bail, contending that even if the allegations are admitted in their entirety, no offence would be made out, and that he is prepared to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the gravity of the offence and the vulnerability of the victim. The court perused Annexure 1 (FIR) and emphasized that while the allegations are serious, it is not adjudicating on merits at this stage, and proceeded to apply established bail jurisprudence: bail is the rule and jail is the exception, to safeguard fair trial. Citing Chidambaram P v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) SCALE 870, the court concluded that the accused may be released on bail with conditions. The order grants bail with conditions including a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, appearance before IO, non-entry into Bakel jurisdiction for 90 days or until final report, no flight, no new offences, and disclosure of residence details to the IO. If breached, bail may be canceled. The judgment reinforces the objective of balancing individual liberty with public interest and the right to a fair trial.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of Criminal Procedure CodeSection 376 of the Indian Penal Code

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Grant of bail helps to secure a fair trial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that, even if the allegations are accepted, no prima facie offence under Section 376 IPC is made out and that he is in custody since 25.03.2022. He asks for bail with stringent conditions, asserting his willingness to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by restrictions, including no travel outside the jurisdiction and no contact with witnesses. He relies on the general principle that bail is the rule to ensure a fair opportunity for trial and contends that prolonged detention would prejudice his defense and the fairness of the proceedings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urge that the offence is grave—rape of an 18-year-old victim—and that bail at this stage would undermine the investigation and victim’s welfare. They emphasize the seriousness of the crime, risk of flight or interference with witnesses, and the need to maintain the integrity of the ongoing investigation, arguing that bail should be refused or, if granted, be accompanied by stringent conditions and close monitoring.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	The court relies on this decision to affirm the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception to ensure a fair trial.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Suneesh A P v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 16TH VAISAKHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.282/2022 OF Bekal Police Station, Kasargod ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SUNEESH A P AGED 36 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, ANTHRATH PARAMBU, CHEKKOD, PARAKKULAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679751 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SHERRY J. THOMAS JOEMON ANTONY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SRI.SANAL P.RAJ, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A. No.3401 of 2022 ------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of May, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.282 of 2022 of the Bekal Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 25.03.2022. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner committed rape on the de-facto complainant who is aged only 18 years. The de-facto complainant is a Plus Two student. The petitioner made acquaintance with the defacto complainant via instagram, a social networking system. On 04.03.2022, the victim went to Cheruvathur bus stand instead of going to her school. The petitioner was ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` waiting there at that time. The petitioner took her to Mattalayi Temple. It is alleged that the petitioner took a chain worn on his neck and adorned her by promising to marry her. It is further alleged that the petitioner took her to a beach in Pallikkara and from a vacant place in the beach, the petitioner committed rape on her assuring that he would marry her. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 25.03.2022 onwards. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed rape on victim who is only 18 years of age. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` may not be released on bail at this stage. It is true that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious. I carefully perused the prosecution case. Annexure 1 is the FIR. I do not want to make any observations about the merits of the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of detention, I think the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions. There can be a direction to the petitioner not to enter the jurisdictional limit of Bakel Police Station for a period of 90 days or till final report is filed. 5. 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 in as much as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` securing fair trial. 6. 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. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. 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/her from ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. 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. 5. The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limit of Bakel Police Station for a period of 90 days or till final report is filed. The petitioner shall give the phone number and details of the place where he is going to reside during the above period to the Investigating Officer within 4 days from the date of his release from jail. 6. If any of the above conditions are ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** np ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 3401 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL.3401/2022`** ``` PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure1THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 282/2022 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION DATED 19-3-2022. Annexure2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO. 1987/2022 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, II, HOSDURG. ``` ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```