Vishnu Sreekumar vs State Of Kerala

K. Babu, J.

The appeal is filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant is the accused in Crime No. 205 of 2019 of Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad District. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 306(1) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The prosecution case:

The victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In October 2018, and thereafter, on many occasions the appellant committed rape on the Victim. In March 2019, the appellant threatened the victim that he would spread the photographs of the victim through social media. The appellant committed the above acts on account of the fact that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste.

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

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as the investigation in the case is over, the further detention of the appellant is not required.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offences alleged against the appellant are very grave. It is submitted that the release of the appellant, who has criminal antecedents, would lead to a circumstance where he may threaten the victim and other witnesses. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant is accused in as many as twelve crimes.

The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while dealing with application for bail:

(i) The nature of the 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 fleeing from justice;

(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.

There is no hard and fast rule regarding granting or refusing bail. Each case has to be considered on the relevant facts and circumstances and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner.

I have perused the Case Diary and the report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The offences alleged against the the appellant are very grave. The trial Court had earlier granted bail to him. He thereafter absconded and the trial court cancelled his bail. The prosecution specifically contends that if the appellant is released on bail, he would threaten the victim and other witnesses.

In serious offences, the courts should not lightly entertain the bail application when there is a prima facie case. Where the offence complained is of such nature as to shake the confidence of the public, bail shall not be granted. Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception, but the accused involved in offences, which are grave, serious and heinous, fall within the exception and not the rule.

10 While the court cannot ignore the fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, it cannot shut its eyes totally to the atrocious nature of the offence committed. Ultimately, it is a question of harmonizing the two situations and finding the course to be adopted to see that justice is done to both parties.

The materials placed by the prosecution would reveal that the appellant is alleged to have committed heinous offences. The prosecution has established a prima facie case.

Having considered the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

The criminal appeal lacks merits, and it stands dismissed. The trial Court is directed to conduct an expeditious trial of the matter.