Sandeep Chandran vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1170 of 2020 of Thalassery Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging

offences punishable under Section 10 r/w. Section 9(l)(m)(n), Section 8 r/w. Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner who is the father of the victim girl sexually abused the child.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his wife are living separately for the last two years. There is a child in the wedlock.

There is a dispute about the custody of the child. The counsel submitted that the petitioner approached even police authorities for getting access to the

child. The counsel submitted that the wife of the petitioner has got some illicit relationship with a dental doctor. Through him the wife of the petitioner

was contacted and the police summoned all the parties. Even then the wife of the petitioner refused to see the child by the petitioner. Thereafter, the

wife of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for getting maintenance. She also filed an application under the Domestic Violence

Act. Thereafter, a complaint is filed at the instance of the wife of the petitioner by the daughter of the petitioner alleging that there is sexual assault to

the child. The counsel submitted that even if we accept the contents in the First Information Statement, no offence is prima facie made out. The

counsel submitted that this is a false case foisted against the petitioner at the instance of his wife.

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

very serious. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court may not disbelieve the statement of the child at this stage.

The Public Prosecutor made available the First Information Statement given by the victim girl aged 7. I perused the statement. The victim girl admit

in the statement that there was dispute between her father and mother. I perused the entire statement. I do not want to make any observation about

the merit of the case. But, I think this is a fit case in which I can invoke the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, there is dispute about the

custody of the child. Again I do not want to make any observation that this complaint is filed by the child at the instance of the wife of the petitioner

because these are matters to be investigated by the Investigating Officer.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application can be allowed 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:

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

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.