Kiran vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

The above captioned application seeking regular bail has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Code’ for short)

by the accused in Crime No.96 of 2021 of Perambra Police Station. In the aforesaid Crime, he is accused of having committed offence punishable

under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC and under Section 119(b) of the Kerala Police Act.

In the FI Statement which was furnished on 18.3.2021, the survivor asserts that she is a married woman and the mother of two children. The

petitioner, on the other hand, is a 20 year old young man. The petitioner as well as the informant are stated to be neighbours. It is stated in the

statement furnished on 08.03.2021 that sometime in the year 2018 the informant had occasion to visit the house of the petitioner to meet his mother.

However, the petitioner persuaded the informant to enter the house and while she was inside forced himself upon her and committed rape. He is

alleged to have snapped some explicit photographs of the lady. The informant states that thereafter the petitioner used to threaten the lady that her

photographs would be circulated and forced her to have a sexual relationship. She became pregnant and after giving birth to the second child, the

petitioner again approached her. Finally, she had to disclose all these aspects to a friend of her husband. When the brother of the informant came to

know that the petitioner was spreading canards about his sister, he picked up an altercation with the petitioner and it led to the registration of a crime

on 02.03.2021. She states that after the registration of the aforesaid crime, the news about the relationship spread far and wide which led her to lodge

the First Information Statement on 08.03.2021 leading to the registration of the crime.

Sri. S.K.Saju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to Ext.A2, Secondary School Leaving Certificate, to substantiate his

contention that the date of birth of the petitioner is 8.6.2001 and he is just 20 years of age at the moment. He would refer to Annexure-A4 FIR and it

is argued that as early as on 2.3.2021, there was an altercation between the brother of the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein and he was

brutally manhandled. The learned counsel would then refer to Annexure- A5 remand report in Crime No. 154/2021 registered under Section 302, 307

and 309 of the IPC and it is argued that the de facto complainant in the instant case on 4.3.2021 had murdered her own child by throwing it into the

nearby river. According to the learned counsel, it was after all these incidents, to justify the horrendous acts committed by her, a false complaint was

lodged about an incident which took place when the petitioner herein was a minor boy.

The learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer. Placing reliance on Annexure-A1 FI statement, it is submitted that the

allegations are extremely grave and the petitioner herein has used force on a married lady and had committed rape on multiple occations.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the materials which are made available. It was at the instance of the petitioner

herein that Crime No.86/2021 was registered on 2.3.2021 against the brother of the de facto complainant and others. Annexure-A5 would reveal that

Crime No.154/2021 was registered in connection with an incident wherein the de facto complainant had attempted suicide and had also thrown her

children into the river. Her minor son had lost his life and a crime was registered under Section 302, 307 and 309 of the IPC. It was thereafter that on

8.3.2021 information was furnished alleging rape by the petitioner. The records reveal that the petitioner has been in custody from 12.5.2021. Having

considered all the relevant aspects, including the nature of accusations, the period of detention undergone, the reasonable possibility of securing his

presence at the stage of trial, and other factors I am of the view that the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not necessary. He can now be

granted bail by imposing appropriate conditions. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not required

in the instant case. He can be granted bail by imposing appropriate conditions.

In the result, this application will stand allowed, however, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

The applicant shall be released on bail on his 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.

The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on every Saturday for a period of two months or until the

filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

The applicant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

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.