Navas vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P., J

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.101 of 2022 of Vallikunnam Police Station, Alappuzha District alleging commission of offences under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 12.02.2022 at about 6.45 pm the petitioner raped the daughter of the defacto complainant inside an auto rickshaw and thereby committed the offences alleged against him. The petitioner was arrested on 23.02.2022 and has completed about 260 days in custody. The first bail application filed by the petitioner before this Court as B.A. No.2768/2022 was dismissed by me vide order dated 20.05.2022. The main reason which compelled me to refuse bail was that the victim was stated to be a girl suffering from 75% intellectual disability. The second bail application filed by the petitioner as B.A. No.5130 of 2022 was also dismissed by me by Annexure A3 order finding no change of circumstances to consider the grant of bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed 260 days in custody. It is submitted that final report has been filed in the matter and the statements recorded from the mother of the victim will show that the victim is not suffering from mental disability as alleged and that the victim has completed Plus Two VHSE and this indicates that she is not intellectually challenged as suggested by the prosecution. It is submitted that since a final report has already been filed after completion of investigation, there is no need to continue the petitioner in custody.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. He states that the victim was aged only 19 years at the time when the incident took place. It is submitted that the victim does suffer from intellectual disability and the mere fact that she has completed Plus Two VHSE does not mean that she is not suffering from such condition. It is submitted that the petitioner is a 54 year old who exploited the young victim. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to stringent conditions. The petitioner has been in custody for 260 days. The final report has been filed after completion of investigation. The further custody of the petitioner is therefore not required for the purposes of any investigation. The only question to be considered is whether the heinousness of the offence should compel this Court to continue the petitioner as an under trial prisoner till the completion of the trial. No criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody for a substantially long period.

For all these reasons, I find that the bail application of the petitioner can be allowed and the petitioner can be directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(ii) The petitioner shall not enter the local limits of Vallikunnam Police Station except for the purpose of appearance before the court or appearance before any statutory authority, until further orders.

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the victim or any of her family members.

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness in the case pending against him.

(v) The petitioner shall not involve himself in any other case.

If any of the above conditions are violated the prosecution may file an application for cancellation of Bail before the jurisdictional Court.