Kerala High Court
Anu Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1377 OF 2020
CRIME NO.628/2018 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 ANU MATHEW
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.BINU PUNNAYIL THOMAS,
THAYYIL HOUSE, VENNIKULAM, THELLIYOOR P.O.
THIRUVALLA VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
WORKING AS A TEACHER IN KUWAIT.
2 MATHEW T.A,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.THARIYAN ABRAHAM, THAYYIL HOUSE,
VENNIKULAM, THELLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA VIA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
SRI.A.V.JOJO
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOYIPURAM POLICE STATION THOROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
SRI.AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.1377/2020 2
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of August 2020 This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.628 of 2018 of Koyipuram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 11 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 3 of Indecent representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Sections 354A, 354D, 292A, 290, 507, 503, 465, 466, 500 and 509 IPC and Section 67, 66(A) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and her 13 year old daughter through facebook. It is also alleged that the first petitioner morphed and uploaded the defacto complainant's daughter's photo in porn site, thereby caused defamation to the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that the second petitioner gave statements in the B.A.NO.1377/2020 3 facebook to defame the defacto complainant and her daughter.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence alleged are not made out against the petitioners. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant them bail. The counsel also submitted that as far as the second petitioner is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation against him. He is the father of the first petitioner.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are very serious. According to the Public Prosecutor, the allegation is that the photos of the victim daughter, aged 13 years, is uploaded in the porn videos. The Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the Bail Application.
7. After hearing both sides, I think the Bail Application of the second petitioner can be allowed on stringent conditions. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, there are serious allegations against her. The allegation is that she morphed the B.A.NO.1377/2020 4 photograph of the daughter of the defacto complainant and uploaded in porn videos. As far the first petitioner is concerned, custodial interrogation is necessary for completing the investigation. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, the allegation against him is less compared to the allegation against the first petitioner. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the cases, I think the Bail Application of the second petitioner can be allowed and the Bail Application of the first petitioner can be dismissed.
8. 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.
9. 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) B.A.NO.1377/2020 5 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.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the Bail Application of the second petitioner is allowed with the following directions:
(i) The second petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.
(ii) After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the second petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing 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.
(iii) The second petitioner shall appear before the B.A.NO.1377/2020 6 Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The second 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.
(iv) The second petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
(v) The second 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.
(vi) The second 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.
(vii) If any of the above conditions are violated by the second petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel B.A.NO.1377/2020 7 the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
The Bail Application of the first petitioner is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE csl