Sarbananda Mili vs State Of Kerala

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

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.957 of 2019 of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki. The above case is registered against the petitioner and

others alleging offences punishable under Sections 366A, 343, 354A(ii), 376(i), 376 (ii) (n)(k), 370, 370A, 506(i), 372 read with 34 IPC. The offences

under Section 3(a) r/w. Sections 4, 5(j)(ii) and Sections 5(l) and 5(p) r/w. Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short

'POCSO Act') is also alleged against the petitioner and the other accused.

The prosecution case is that the 1st accused took the victim from Assam and kept in a house at Thodupuzha. He committed rape on her.

Thereafter, it is alleged that the other accused also committed rape on her. The allegation is that there is gang rape. The petitioner was arrested on

4.9.2019. Admittedly, the victim is a minor girl.

Heard Advocate Smt.Resmi Nandanan, the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only reason for rejecting the application by the lower Court is that the petitioner is from Assam.

The counsel submitted that that is not a reason to reject an application for bail by the lower court. The petitioner is in custody from 4.9.2019 onwards.

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

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and the victim are from Assam. The

allegations against the petitioner are very serious. The Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court release the petitioner on bail, it will be very

difficult to get presence of the petitioner during trial.

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

petitioner are very serious. I think this is a case in which the petitioner should face trial in detention. The lower Court will take every steps to complete

the trial.

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.