Thomas V.M. vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1509/2022 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station, Kottayam, alleging offences punishable under Sections 376, 450 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 apart from Sections 3, 4, 5(l), 6, 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

According to the prosecution, during the period from November 2018 till 08.05.2019, the accused had raped the victim, who was a minor at that point of time and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Sri.Godwin Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that factually also, the victim has specifically alleged that petitioner is a rubber tapper. However, as evident from Annexures A2 to A6, petitioner was working till 2012 in various capacities in India and abroad. It is specifically asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never a rubber tapper, required to work in other places which itself shows the falsity of the prosecution case. It was also pointed out that, in any event, petitioner, having been arrested on 13.11.2022, further detention is not essential especially since the final report has already been filed.

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that even though the final report was filed on 12.01.2023, continued detention is essential.

I have considered the rival contentions. Even though the victim has specifically alleged that the petitioner is a rubber tapper, the same by itself does not detract from the correctness of allegations raised by her, even though Annexures A2 to A6 evidence that petitioner was working in India and abroad in different capacities. Those documents only prove that petitioner was working as such only till 2012. The nature of work done by petitioner during 2018-19 is what is alleged by the victim. However, taking note of the delay of four years in lodging the complaint and the filing of final report, I am of the view that continued detention of the petitioner is not essential.

Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions :-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.