John William 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.1181 of 2020 of Poovar Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences

punishable under Sections 376 (2) (i)(n) and 419 r/w.Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution case is that on 24.6.2020 evening, the 1st accused made the victim believe that there is a treatment for infertility and took her to

the rented house of 2nd accused, who is the petitioner. The prosecution case is that the victim stayed there with the petitioner. Thereafter, on that day

itself the petitioner with the support of the 1st accused, the petitioner sexually abused her. According to the prosecution, the same continued till

28.6.2020. 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 there is a long delay in filing the complaint. The counsel submitted that the offence under Section 376

IPC is prima facie made out in this case. The 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 submitted that the victim is a mentally retarded lady and there is 40%

disability as per the First Information Statement itself. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was arrested only on 15.11.2020.

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application cannot be allowed at this stage. Very serious allegations are there against the petitioner. Under

the guise of treatment, the petitioner sexually abused the victim is the allegation. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case.

These are matters to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner is not

entitled bail at this stage.

Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P

v Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272.) The apex court held that, the following factors are to the taken into consideration while

considering the application for bail.

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

(iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.

It is true that there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be decided on the basis of the facts and

circumstances of that case. In the light of the general principles laid down in the above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed.