Rajan vs State Of Kerala And Anr

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

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.948 of 2020 of Vellikulangara Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner

alleging offences punishable under Sections 447, 376(2)(f) and 376(3) IPC and Section 4(2) r/w. Section 3(b)(d), Section 6(l) r/w. Section 5(n) and

Section 8 r/w. Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act') is also alleged.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner who is the maternal uncle of the victim, who is a minor girl aged 13 years, committed raped on her by

trespassing into the ancestral property of the victim on 13.10.2020. The petitioner was arrested on 2.11.2020.

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

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioner. No such incident happened as alleged by the

prosecution. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant him bail.

The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very

serious and he committed rape on a minor girl aged 13. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is aged 56 years and the victim is aged 13

years. The allegation is that he committed offence under Section 376(3) IPC. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not release the

petitioner on bail at this stage.

After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. Very serious allegations are raised

against the petitioner. The petitioner is the maternal uncle of the victim. He is aged 56 years. The victim in this case is aged 13 years. I do not want to

make any observation about the merit of the case.

Considering the entire 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.