Sanal Sankaran vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Petitioner is the accused in S.C. No.365/2022 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and also under various Sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the POCSO Act. Petitioner was arrested and he is in custody from 11.03.2022.

The prosecution case is that the victim in this case got acquainted with the petitioner in the month of January, 2022 through social media. It is alleged that the petitioner committed sexual harassment against the victim by following her through social media. It is alleged that the petitioner managed to obtain nude videos and photographs of the victim in his mobile phone. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed offence.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 11.03.2022 onwards. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that final report is already filed and the petitioner is ready to appear before the Trial Court as and when required. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will abide any conditions imposed by this Court. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was arrested after issuing lookout notice. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner absconded when the case was registered. Therefore the Public Prosecutor oppose the bail application mainly for the reason that the presence of the accused for the trial will be difficult if the petitioner is released on bail. It is true that the petitioner was not available during the time of investigation. But it is a fact that the investigation is already over and the final report is filed. The petitioner is in custody from 11.03.2022 onwards. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner will abscond can be safeguarded by directing the petitioner to surrender his passport.

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 in as much 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 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/her 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 surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Court. If there is no passport to the petitioner, the petitioner will file an affidavit to that effect before the Court concerned.

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. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions.