Sajeesh P.P. vs State Of Kerala

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

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.782 of 2020 of Thadiyittaparambu Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner

alleging offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 354D(1) of the IPC and Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner is in

custody from 23.11.2020 onwards.

The admitted prosecution case is that, on 14.9.2020 at 9.30 a.m., the accused threatened the defacto complainant and abducted her in a car and

committed rape on her from a lodge. It is further alleged that the accused recorded the obscene images of the defacto complainant without her

consent and forced her to accompany him again and when she refused, the accused slapped on her face. Hence, it is alleged that the accused

committed the aforesaid offences.

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

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail, stringent

conditions may be imposed.

After hearing both sides, I think this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true that the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application but the admitted case is that there was a relationship between the petitioner and the victim from 2017 onwards. The alleged incident

happened in a lodge. According to the victim, she went to the lodge along with the petitioner. Thereafter, the complaint is filed after about two months.

I don't want to make any observation on the merit of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the

period of detention of the accused, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail on stringent conditions.

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this

Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

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:

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.

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.

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

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

The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of

social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

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.