XXXXXXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This is an application for regular bail filed by the 1st accused in Crime No.8 of 2024 of Malakkapara Police Station, Thrissur.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

I have perused the relevant documents form part of the case diary.

The prosecution case is that the accused herein, who was in custody and control of the father and relatives of the minor victim, aged 17 years, induced the minor and brought her to a jungle near Pothupara colony. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 4 poured spray on the face of the defacto complainant to make her unconscious, and when she became unconscious, accused 1 to 4 subjected her to aggravated sexual assault. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 370, 354, 354(A)(i)(ii), 354(B), 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a) r/w 4, 5(i)(p) r/w 6, 9(p) r/w 10, 11(i), (vi) r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act (`PoCSO Act' for short).

The learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the custody of the petitioner from 10.03.2024 and the progress of the investigation, while canvassing regular bail to the petitioner, apart from reiterating his innocence.

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail highlighting the seriousness of the offences and the manner in which it was done. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the minor girl was forcefully taken from the legal custody of the father and taken to a jungle and then she was made unconscious by pouring spray on her face. Then she was subjected to rape by accused No.1. Therefore, the petitioner would not deserve bail.

On perusal of the prosecution records, the allegation is serious though the other accused could not be traced. Accordingly, investigation has been progressing, excluding them. Even though the accused raised a contention that he had taken the victim girl, who was found unconscious from the place of occurrence on 08.03.2024, in his Autorickshaw and he did not commit the offence and he was impleaded in this crime without any justification, the prosecution records would suggest that the petitioner has involvement in this crime, prima facie. However, it appears that the petitioner is in custody from 10.03.2024 and the investigation has achieved much progress. Further he has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

In the result, this bail application stands allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court concerned.

ii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial.

iii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with trial and shall be available for trial.

iv. He shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial court.

v. The petitioner shall not disturb or meet the defacto complainant, in any manner and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same by itself shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.