Muthuraj vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code .

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.560 of 2022 of Peerumed Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 354, 354 A(1)(i) and 376 (2) (l)(n) of the IPC. The offence under Sec. 92(b) of the Right of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 is also alleged.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner with an intention to outrage the modesty of the mentally retarded daughter of the defacto complainant, in between the month of February, 2022 and on 02.08.2022 entered the Karadikuzhi Estate WP Division Layam of the defacto complainant and had inserted his hand into the buttocks of the mentally retarded daughter of the defacto complainant. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences. The petitioner was arrested on 13.03.2023.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 13.03.2023 onwards. The counsel submitted that the petitioner has no connection with the above case and there is delay in filing the complaint. That itself shows that the case is false. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grants him bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious.

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true that the allegations against the petitioner is very serious. But, the petitioner is in custody from 13.03.2023 onwards. Indefinite incarceration of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. There can be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays till final report is filed. With that condition, this bail application can be allowed.

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.

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:

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.

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.

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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.

Petitioner will appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays at 11 am till final report is filed.

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 Court.