Kerala High Court
Rajesh Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 374
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 12TH BHADRA, 1941
BAIL APPL.NO.6351 OF 2019
CRIME NO.794/2018 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAJESH GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
VRINDAVANAM, KEEZHILLAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 541.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR
SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHENGANOOR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN-689 121.
SRI.T.RRENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 6351 of 2019
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2 in the instant Anx.A1 Crime No.794/2018 of Nooranad Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.376, 420 & 34 of the IPC, on the basis of FIS given by lady defacto complainant on 14.6.2018 at 3 pm in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened for the period from 1.5.2005 to 12.6.2018.
2. The prosecution case in short is that, the lady defacto complainant now is working as a maid servant and that earlier some time in 2005 she was allured by A1 who is based in Surat, Gujarat State, that he could provide her a job in Surat, and she had gone there, and A1 had sexually abused and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her and thereafter she left Surat as she was cheated by A1 and she never had contact with him and worked abroad as a maid servant in various Gulf countries for about 10 years. Long thereafter she came into contact with A1 in April, 2017, who had assured her that A2 who is his boss, who is in a Gulf country B.A. No. 6351 of 2019 ..3..
could provide her a job. Thereupon the defacto complainant had gone to Gulf country Muscat and worked as maid servant in the house of A2 and she was forcibly raped by A2 on two occasions.
3. It appears that no precise periods regarding the alleged solo incident of rape said to have done by A1 in Surat and two incidents of rape said to have done by A2 in Muscat are mentioned in FIS. Further it appears that the entire incidents of rape alleged as against A1 is about 14 years back and complaint is made by the lady defacto complainant as late as on 14.6.2019.
4. Further the counsel for the petitioner would point out that, according to the lady, she was cheated by A1 in the year 2005. Thereafter again she has believed the words of A1 in April, 2017, and that it is very difficult to believe such a story that a lady who was cheated and raped by A1 in the year 2005, would again trust the very same person in the year 2017 and that she would have acted upon his promise to work as a maid servant in the house of A2 in a Gulf country. Further the counsel for the petitioner would point out that A1 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per Anx.A-V order dated 5.9.2018 in B.A.No.5160/2018 filed by A1 herein. After appreciating the nature of allegations in the FIS this B.A. No. 6351 of 2019 ..4..
Court has observed in page 4 of Anx.A-V order that the allegations are quite fishy and that pre-arrest bail is to be granted to A-1 etc. In the instant case it appears that the petitioner (A2) was abroad and this Court had passed Anx.A-X order dated 8.8.2019 in Crl.M.C. No.5631/2019 directing that the enforcement of non bailable warrant and the look out notice issued against the petitioner in relation to this crime shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month, in order to enable him to come over to India from the Gulf country to move for appropriate remedies including anticipatory bail. It appears that, since Anx.A-X order was rendered only on 8.8.2019, the copy of the order was not immediately available and the police authorities were not apprised by Anx.A-X order and when the petitioner had landed at the Airport at Trivandrum, he was arrested on 10.8.2019 pursuant to look out notice, and thereafter on realising about Anx.A-X order, learned Magistrate has released him by issuing interim bail order.
5. Sri.C.K.Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of Anx.A-V order rendered by this Court in the case of A-1 as well as other circumstances, this Court may order to grant anticipatory bail as the petitioner has been B.A. No. 6351 of 2019 ..5..
released on interim bail basis by the learned Magistrate, so that the petitioner could work out his remedies in accordance with law.
6. Learned Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant of bail and has pointed out that there is strong possibility that the petitioner intimidating and influencing the lady defacto complainant if he is let out on bail.
7. After hearing both sides and taking into account the observations and findings made by this Court in Anx.A-V order in the case of A-1 and also the long and unexplained delay in registering the above crime, and as well as the other attendant circumstances, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for effective and smooth conduct of investigation in relation to this crime. However, as a safeguard it is proposed to order that the petitioner shall not enter into or reside within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the lady defacto complainant is residing until the conclusion of investigation process, subject to certain exceptions which will be dealt with hereinafter. However the petitioner will have to immediately report before the Investigating Officer for the conduct of investigation process.
B.A. No. 6351 of 2019
..6..
8. Further Anx.A-XI remand report would show that the petitioner has already been interrogated by the Investigating Officer and potency test has been conducted in relation to the above crime, etc. Accordingly it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. Further it is also ordered that it will be subject to following conditions:-
i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.
ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. iii. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when required in that connection.
iv. The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever. v. The petitioner will surrender his Passport before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned within 10 days and also file an affidavit before said Court undertaking that he will travel abroad only with the prior permission of the said Court.
If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.B.A. No. 6351 of 2019
..7..
9. Since the petitioner's permanent employment is based in the Gulf country (Muscat), it is ordered in the interest of justice that it will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned seeking permission to travel abroad and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate will immediately consider the application on merits and after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner's counsel and learned Prosecutor will take appropriate decision thereon, and may consider granting such plea for permission subject to conditions to ensure that he would return back to India as and when required by the Investigating Officer or the Court concerned, etc. With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG