Ibrahim Khaleel vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.633 of 2022 of Manjeswar Police Station, Kasaragod. The offences initially alleged against the petitioner were under sections 354A(1)(i), 363 and 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, apart from sections 8, 7, 11(iv) and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act')

In the FIR prosecution alleged that the accused stalked the victim from October 2021 onwards and, without the consent of the parents, took her to a beach and committed sexual assault on her.

During the course of investigation, it was realised that the petitioner had indulged in forcible sexual intercourse with the victim, and therefore, the offences under section 376(2)(i) & (n) and section 6(1) read with section 5(l) of the POCSO Act were also added. Petitioner was arrested on 24.08.2022 and has been in custody since then. In the meantime, the final report was submitted on 15.09.2022.

Sri.P.K.Subhash, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the prosecution allegations are totally false and the incident, as alleged, had not occurred. It was also pointed out that, even if the entire prosecution allegations are assumed to be true, still, only a romantic relationship between the petitioner and the victim alone would be revealed. He further pointed out that the allegations of sexual harassment and even rape have been raised at the instigation and compulsion of the parents of the victim and, therefore, the very basis of the prosecution case is faulty. The learned counsel also pointed out that, in any event, since the petitioner has been in custody from 24.08.2022, considering the young age and also the circumstances of the case, continued detention ought not to be permitted.

Adv. Ann Susan George appearing for the victim, on the other hand, contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and that even though the final report has been submitted, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance that he may intimidate and threaten the witnesses.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor, also opposed the grant of bail and contended that considering the gravity of the allegations, the release of the petitioner on bail would cause prejudice to the investigation.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Petitioner is a young person of 22 years of age. He is alleged to have committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, aged 16 years. Initially, when the FI statement was given, the victim had only stated that the accused had touched her shoulders and kissed her. However, subsequently, during medical examination, it was revealed that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault. It was then stated by the victim that the act was done inside the house of the petitioner and also near the school on four occasions. On the basis of the above allegations, the investigating officer added offences under section 376(2)(i) &(n) of IPC as well as those under section 6(i) read with section 5(l) of the POCSO Act.

No doubt, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. However, considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner and also the fact that the final report has been filed as early as on 15.09.2022, I am of the view that no purpose would be achieved by the continued detention of the petitioner. Taking into reckoning the young age of the petitioner and the above circumstances, I am of the view that even though the allegations are serious in nature, the petitioner ought to be released on bail. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution can be allayed by imposing appropriate conditions.

Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of Manjeshwar Police Station, Kasaragod, until the conclusion of trial.

(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(f) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

In  case  of  violation  of  any  of  the  above  conditions,  the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.