Gopikrishnan @Yadhu vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

The petitioner is the accused in crime No.371/2021 of Valiyathura Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging

offence punishable under Sections 384 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 21.03.2021 onwards.

The prosecution case is that on 10.03.2020, the accused committed sexual offence and thereafter promised the victim to marry her. Based on the

promise, the accused repeatedly raped her. It is also alleged that the accused borrowed money from the victim and also threatened that he will upload

the video of the sexual act between them in the social media. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against

the petitioner are false. The counsel submitted that the alleged sexual offence was on 10.03.2020 and the complaint was filed only on 19.03.2021. The

counsel submitted that the victim is a major girl. The counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar v. State of

Maharashtra and others [2019(1) KHC 403] and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2019 KHC 6829]. The Public Prosecutor

opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed serious offence.

Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody from 21.03.2021. The first sexual offence in this case alleged as per the statement was on 10.03.2020. The

FIR is registered on 19.03.2021. The crux of the prosecution case is that there was a promise to marry from the side of the petitioner and based on

that promise the victim consented for sex. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. Considering the facts and circumstances

of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 21.03.2021, I think that this Bail application can be allowed, on

conditions.

Moreover, the 2nd wave of COVID-19 is spreading in the country and the citizens are facing serious difficulties. In the state of Kerala, the 2nd

wave of the pandemic is creating lot of problems and even the day-to-day life of the citizens are affected. Everyday, about 25,000 people are tested

positive with COVID-19. In such circumstances, this Court has to consider this fact also while considering bail applications. The life is more important

than anything. Therefore, I am considering this bail application based on the above pandemic situation.

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. These happened during the

1st wave of COVID-19 season.

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 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.

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.

The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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.

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.