Kerala High Court
Dr.Serbin Muhammed vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:328
BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1136/2024 OF Parippally Police Station, Kollam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2024 IN CRMC NO.2528
OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
DR.SERBIN MUHAMMED
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.SHERAFUDEEN, DUAA, TC 16/363(2), UARRA 121B,
PARAMBUVILA LANE, ULLOOR, AAKKULAM, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
S.ABHILASH
ANJANA KANNATH
MARIYA JOSE
P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)(K/421/1984)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM -, PIN - 691574
2025:KER:328
BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.ADV.SRI.P.VIJAYABHANU
ADV.SRI.RENJITH GEORGE-SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:328
BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.10691 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of January, 2025
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1136/2024 of Parippally Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(i), 62, 64 and 76 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, BNS).
3. The prosecution case is that on 23.10.2024, between 10.00 PM and 1.00 AM, the petitioner with the aid and support of Dr.Manjusha, attempted to commit rape and thereby committed sexual assault upon the defacto complainant, after forcibly taking her to the medical officers' duty room attached to surgery ward No.18 of Government Medical College, Parippally, Kollam and forced her to consume alcohol. Thereby the accused alleged to have committed the above said offences.
2025:KER:328 BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024 4
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, as instructed by Sri.K.Siju, for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The Senior Counsel takes me through Annexure-A1. A perusal of the same would show that the defacto complainant and the petitioner together went to a Toddy Shop and collected Toddy. They consumed Toddy inside the consultation room in the hospital itself. It is also stated by the defacto complainant that she was offered with a glass of brandy and she consumed that also. Thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant without her consent in the presence of Dr.Manjusha. It is alleged that Dr.Manjusha kept silent. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case.
6. Admittedly the petitioner and the defacto complainant are major. It is also an admitted fact that they consumed Toddy and brandy. Thereafter the alleged incident happened on 23.10.2024. The complaint is seen filed on 29.10.2024. Thereafter the FIR is registered after 33 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think 2025:KER:328 BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024 5 custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.
7. Moreover, 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) 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.
8. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:
"12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an 2025:KER:328 BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024 6 arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349:
1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused."
9. In Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2023 KHC 6961], the Apex Court observed that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above 2025:KER:328 BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024 7 decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think bail can be granted after imposing stringent conditions.
Therefore, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer continuously for two days from 10 am to 4 pm.
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a 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 arresting officer concerned.
2025:KER:328 BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024 8
3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The 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.
4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
5. 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.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this 2025:KER:328 BAIL APPL. NO. 10691 OF 2024 9 Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE