Kerala High Court
K.T.Gopalan @ Babu vs State Of Kerala on 1 April, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No. 2208 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MP 838/2019 of SESSIONS
COURT,KASARAGOD
CRIME NO. 51/2019 OF Bedakam Police Station, Kasargod
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.T.GOPALAN @ BABU
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MALINGAN.T.,
RESIDING AT KANHANGANADUKKAM,
NELLITHAVU, KUTTIKKOL P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
SRI.SARUN RAJAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERANAKULAM
SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 2208/19 -:2:-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 2208 of 2019
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2019
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.51 of 2019 of Bedakam Police Station, which has been registered for the offences under Sections 376(1), 506(i) of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 31.12.2018 at about 8.30 p.m. the lady de facto complainant along with her husband and son had gone to attend the dance programme performed by her daughter that on the way they went to the house of one Vishwambaran from whom her husband had collected an amount of Rs.500/- as loan. While her husband has gone into the house of Vishwambaran for returning the amount, the lady de facto has been dragged by the petitioner to a nearby forest, where she was committed rape by the accused.
BA 2208/19 -:3:-
3. It is pointed out by the petitioner's counsel that though the alleged incident had taken place on 31.12.2018, the FIS has been lodged by the lady de facto complainant only on 26.2.2019 wherein she has clearly stated that she could identify the person who has raped her. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the allegations raised by the lady de facto complainant are of intrinsically improbable and unbelievable for the simple reason that even according to her she had gone with her husband and son to the place in question for seeing the dance programme of her daughter and on the way when her husband had gone to the house of Vishwambaran, the petitioner had dragged her into the forest and committed rape. Even according to her only her husband had gone inside the house of Vishwambaran which clearly implies that her son was with her. Ordinarily the son would have been aware of the same and the son and her husband would have made enquiries immediately after they have come to know of the missing of the woman. The crucial factual aspect is that the incident has been belatedly reported as on 26.2.2019 would be clinching regarding the falsification of the allegations in this case. Even as per the version of the de facto complainant she was hospitalised from 19.2.2019 to 25.2.2019 and that this has been presumably projected as the ground BA 2208/19 -:4:- for justifying the delay in reporting the incident. Further that even if it is taken that she was hospitalised, that will not justify the delay which occurred between 31.12.2018 (the date of alleged incident ) up to 19.2.2019 and that these are all aspects which would clearly point out that the incidents have not happened as alleged by the de facto complainant and that it is a false version etc., it is urged
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the plea for regular bail stating that the allegations are grave and serious and further that the investigation has not so far been completed.
5. After hearing both sides, and after examining the above aspects of the case, more particularly the very version of the de facto complainant and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continued detention of the petitioner is no longer necessary. However strict conditions is to be imposed to ensure the integrity of the investigation process. Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i). The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every BA 2208/19 -:5:- 2nd and 4th Saturdays, at any time between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., for a further period of 3 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
(ii). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(iii). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
(iv). The petitioner shall not in any manner contact the de fact complainant or go anywhere near the residence of the de facto complainant .
(v) Investigating Officer will depute a Woman Police Constable preferably a woman constable to the residence of the de facto complainant once in six weeks to ascertain whether the petitioner is in any manner trying to influence or intimidate her or her family members. If anything adverse against the petitioner is brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer, he shall take necessary steps for moving application for cancellation of the bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vps /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE