Ibrahim T.M.P vs State Of Kerala

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

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.913 of 2020 of Thaliparamba Police Station, Kannur. The above case is registered against the petitioner

alleging offences punishable under Sections 450, 376, 354(B), 354(C), 506(I), 420 IPC. The offence under Section 4 r/w. Section 3(b), Section 8 r/w. 7

of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act') is also alleged. Section 66E of the Information Technology Act is

also alleged against the petitioner.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner claims to have magical powers and made the de facto complainant and her family to believe that he could

cure de facto complainant's mother's sister's pain in leg. He made them believe that a 'jin' had entered their body. On 9.9.2020 at 11 hours at Busuri

Garden at Kurumathur amsom inside the house where the de facto complainant was residing he had undressed the de facto complainant, a minor girl

aged 16 years and had sexually assaulted her and committed penetrative sexual assault. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 10.9.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready

to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is some financial transaction between the

brother of the de facto complainant and hence this false case is foisted. The counsel submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false.

The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a clear case of rape on a minor girl. The

Public Prosecutor submitted that a reading of the First Information Statement itself will show that the petitioner committed the offence under Section

376 IPC. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that the final report is already filed before the jurisdictional Court on 25.10.2020.

It is an admitted fact that the investigation in this case is over and the final report is filed before the competent court. In such circumstances,

whether the petitioner should be detained further is the question to be decided. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious. But

no purpose will be served if the petitioner is detained in jail especially during this pandemic period. I do not want to make any observation about the

merit of the case. But considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for about 85 days and also considering the fact that the final report is

already filed, I think this bail application can be allowed. But I make it clear that if the petitioner try to contact or try to intimidate the de facto

complainant in any manner, the prosecution is free to file an application to cancel the bail before the lower court. With that observation, I think this bail

application can be allowed.

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:

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.

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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.