Kerala High Court
Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:69133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 7098 OF 2024
CRIME NO.504/2024 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
UNNIKRISHNAN
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KODIKKATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE,
PALAKKUNNU DESOM, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680653
BY ADV PREMCHAND M.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2024,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7098/2024
-:2:-
2024:KER:69133
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of September,2024 The application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the sole accused in Crime No.504/2024 of the Peechi Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 354D & 354(A)(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 8 read with Section 7 & 10 read with Section 9(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.07.2024.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that: one day in 2022, when the victim, a minor girl aged 12 years, was studying in the 5th standard, the accused, who is a neighbour, groped her breasts, and on B.A.No.7098/2024 -:3:- 2024:KER:69133 another day, he had put his hand around her neck, and outraged her modesty and committed aggravated sexual assault on her. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri.Premchand M., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged against him. The Investigating Officer has deliberately implicated the petitioner as an accused at the instigation of the victim. The families of the victim and the petitioner are at loggerheads. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 61 days, the investigation in the B.A.No.7098/2024 -:4:- 2024:KER:69133 case is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed on 24.08.2024. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention in the crime is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that there are incriminating materials to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offences. If the petitioner is let off on bail, there is every likelihood of him intimidating the victim and the witnesses and also tampering with the evidence. Hence, the application may be dismissed. Nonetheless, he stated that the charge sheet has been filed on 24.08.2024.
6. The prosecution case is that, in 2022, the accused outraged the modesty of the victim and committed aggravated sexual assault on her on two B.A.No.7098/2024 -:5:- 2024:KER:69133 occasions. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 61 days, the investigation in the case is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed on 24.08.2024. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
7. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is the rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner.
8. In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)[2024 SCC OnLine SC 934], the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the B.A.No.7098/2024 -:6:- 2024:KER:69133 most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to following observations made by this Court in the case of Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala[(2022) SCC OnLine SC 929] "7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595] the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From its experience, it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is the rule and refusal is an B.A.No.7098/2024 -:7:- 2024:KER:69133 exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, the Honourable Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts recognize the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception.
10. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 61 days, the investigation in the case is complete, the charge sheet has been laid, and the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application, but subject to stringent conditions. B.A.No.7098/2024 -:8:-
2024:KER:69133 In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every third Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the conclusion of the trial in Crime No. 504/2024.
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat to the victim or her witnesses or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer, or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;B.A.No.7098/2024 -:9:-
2024:KER:69133
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;
(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.
(vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner B.A.No.7098/2024 -:10:- 2024:KER:69133 is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
(viii) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE
DST/11.09.24 //True copy//
P.A. To Judge