A.R. George vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.931 of 2020 of Palarivattom Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging

offences punishable under Sections 7 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act & Section 506 IPC.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner had sexually abused the 8 year old daughter of the defacto complainant during the period from.1.5.2013

to 24.4.2014. The defacto complainant is settled in Unites States of America. On 28.9.2020 she sent an e-mail to the President of the Child Welfare

Committee, Ernakulam alleging that there was sexual abuse towards her children from the petitioner. The Child Welfare Committee forwarded the

same to the DCP, Law & Order, Ernakulam. Accordingly, the present case is registered.

Heard the Senior counsel Adv.Sri.P. Vijayabhanu for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in this case is a lawyer practicing for about 34 years in High Court and

Subordinate courts. The Senior counsel submitted that the defacto complainant is the sister of the petitioner's wife. The daughter of the defacto

complainant was with the petitioner during the period from 2013 to 2014. Subsequently, there was some misunderstanding between the wife of the

petitioner and the defacto complainant. Now after about 8 years, the defacto complainant is making a false complaint alleging that the petitioner

sexually abused the children. The Senior counsel submitted that this is a false case and the same is filed by the defacto complainant just to harass the

petitioner. The Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor made available the e-mail sent by the defacto complainant and the e-mail

sent by the Child Welfare Committee, Ernakulam to the DCP, Ernakulam. The Public Prosecutor submitted that after getting the e-mail, the

investigating officer was not able to interrogate the defacto complainant or the child because they are settled in United States of America.

After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The alleged incident happened in 2013 and in 2014. The

complaint is filed only in 2020. According to the petitioner, there was some dispute between the defacto complainant and her sister who is the wife of

the petitioner. I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. The Senior counsel also submitted that in 2017, the defacto complainant

came to India and there was no complaint filed by the defacto complainant at that time. As I said earlier, I don't want to make any observation on the

merit of this case. These are all matters to be investigated by the investigating officer at the time of investigation. Considering the entire facts and

circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

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 number of inmates inside prisons.

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.

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:

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail 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 officer concerned.

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.

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court.

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of

social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

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.