Kerala High Court
Manoj Kumar M.K vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2021
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 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942
Bail Appl..No.983 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1120/2020 OF Ottapalam Police Station , Palakkad
PETITIONER/S:
MANOJ KUMAR M.K
AGED 47 YEARS
S.O KESAVAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, THOTTUVATHALA P.O,
KAINIKKARA SOUTH, ALAPUZHA
688501
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
C N PRABHAKARAN PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.983 OF 2021 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A. No. 983 of 2021
--------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2021
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1120 of 2020 of Ottapalam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 376, 376(2)(n), 420, 509 and 506 IPC. The offence under Sec. 119(a) of the KP Act is also alleged. The petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2020.
3. The prosecution case is that by giving promise of marriage, the accused raped the de-facto complainant at the rented house at Kanniyampuram, Manisseri and from the house of the accused at Palappuram on various occasions. Accused also obtained money and gold from the de-facto Bail Appl..No.983 OF 2021 3 complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner committed sexual abuse towards the victim.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Sec. 376 IPC is not made out. The counsel submitted that the alleged incidents happened from 2017 onwards and the complaint was filed in November 2020. The counsel submitted that the victim in this case is aged 47. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 25.12.2020 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed grievous offence.
7. After hearing both sides and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody from 25.12.2020 onwards, I think Bail Appl..No.983 OF 2021 4 this bail application can be allowed, on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the alleged sexual intercourse started from 2017 onwards, but the complaint is filed only in November, 2020. The victim in this case is aged 47. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. These are matters to be investigated by the investigating officer. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.
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. 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 Bail Appl..No.983 OF 2021 5 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.
10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-
operate with the investigation and shall Bail Appl..No.983 OF 2021 6 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.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. 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.
5. The 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.
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Bail Appl..No.983 OF 2021 7 Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS