Rahul vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.219/2022 of Veeyapuram Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 354, 354A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 4 r/w Section 3(a) and Section 8 r/w Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

According to the prosecution, petitioner had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim aged 16 years and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Sri.Mathew Jacob on behalf of Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the circumstances of the case are peculiar and that the victim and the petitioner were in a relationship for around 9 months. According to the counsel, the victim hails from a dysfunctional family and to avoid the hardship faced by her at her home, she sought solace with the petitioner conveying that she is above 18 years. Petitioner and his family accepted her with open hands and provided a shelter. As the acquaintance grew, the relationship turned physical and later when her parents complained about the missing child, she was traced from petitioner's house. It was also submitted that the allegation relates to a single instance which has led petitioner's detention from 20.10.2022 onwards. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions in X v. State Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. [2022 Live Law (Del) 1077] as well as Vijayalakshmi and Ors. v. State and Ors. [2021 ICO 2134] and contended that considering the young age of the petitioner, further detention ought not to be permitted.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that since the investigation is still continuing, releasing the petitioner, at this juncture would cause prejudice and that there is every chance of him influencing the witnesses. It was further submitted that though the petitioner is young in age, considering the age of the victim, he ought not to be released on bail at this juncture.

Taking into consideration the period of detention already undergone and the age of the petitioner apart from the statement of the victim that she had projected herself as a major, I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that further detention ought not to be permitted.

Petitioner has been in custody from 20.10.2022 and he is only 21 years in age. A solitary instance of physical union with the victim is alleged. Circumstances reveal that the victim had left her house on her own to escape from her father, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that petitioner ought to be released on bail, however under strict conditions to prevent any intimidation/ influence of the witnesses including the victim.

Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions :-

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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 court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of Veeyapuram Police Station until filing of the final report.

(f) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.