Mahalar vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.59/2024 of Guruvayoor Temple Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under  Sections  376,  406,  420,  294(b)  and  506  of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in brief is that on some day during April, 2021, at a lodge at West Nada, Guruvayoor and on 30.08.2022 at the house of a friend of the accused at Palappetty, the accused committed rape upon the defacto complainant on the promise that he will marry her. It is also submitted that on various occasions, the accused obtained an amount of Rs.31,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant came to know that the accused will not marry her, she demanded the money back. But the accused abused her and threatened to kill her and her son.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody from 02.04.2024 onwards. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant is aged 43 years at the time of the incident and even if the allegations are accepted, it is clear that the sexual relationship is with her consent. It is further submitted that there is a long delay in filing the complaint.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious.

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is very serious in nature. But it is a fact that the victim is aged 43 years. According to her, she spent time with the petitioner in a lodge at Guruvayoor and in the house of a friend of the accused. This incidents happened in April, 2021 and on 30.08.2022. But the complaint is filed only in the year 2024. I do not want to make any observation about the merits of the case. Since the petitioner is in custody from 02.04.2024 onwards, this Court is of the opinion that this bail application can be allowed with stringent conditions.

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:

i. 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.

ii. 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.

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

iv. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

v. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays at 10 a.m till final report is filed.

vi. 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.