Jayarajan vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P, J

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.82/2023 of Vanitha Police Station, Malappuram alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 354A (1)(i), 354 A (2), 354 D, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner who was working as Panchayat Secretary is that the petitioner committed rape and he also sexually assaulted the victim who was working as a clerk in the Panchayat office.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even assuming that all the allegations in the first information statement of the victim are correct it can only be a case of consensual relationship. It is submitted that the allegations which led to registration of Crime No.82/2023 relate to the year 2019 and a crime was registered against the petitioner only after nearly 3 ½ years. It is submitted that the de facto complainant / victim is a married lady having two children. It is submitted that in the year 2020 the petitioner was working at Perumpadappu Grama Panchayat and during general transfer the de facto complainant / victim had even requested for a transfer to the said Panchayat. It is submitted that since the allegation relates to the period prior to that the act of the de facto complainant / victim in seeking a transfer to Perumpadappu Grama Panchayat in the year 2020 at a time when the petitioner was working there as Secretary clearly indicates that the relationship, if at all, can only be consensual. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 22-09-2023 and the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that the investigation into the case has not been completed. It is submitted that there are clear allegations in the first information statement of the de facto complainant / victim to suggest that the petitioner had committed the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that the petitioner was the superior officer of the victim and therefore nothing can be read into the fact that there was delay in reporting the crime. It is submitted that the investigation is only progressing and the grant of bail at this stage may not be conducive to the investigation.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail. The petitioner has been in custody for nearly 40 days. The allegations against the petitioner do not compel me to hold that the continued detention of the petitioner may be necessary for a proper investigation into crime registered against the petitioner. The only apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may not co-operate with the investigation if he is granted bail and he may intimidate the victim. That can be taken care by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly this bail application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute 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 jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.82/2023 of Vanitha Police Station, Malappuram as and when called upon to do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the victim or any witness in Crime No.82/2023 of Vanitha Police Station, Malappuram;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.82/2023 of Vanitha Police Station, Malappuram may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.