Saleel Raveendran vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P, J

This is an application for regular bail.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.304/2021 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam District registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(l) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts are that the petitioner, who is a Chartered Account and the victim, who is a orthodontist practicing in the United Kingdom, were classmates in school. There was a school reunion function that was planned in respect of the batch to which the petitioner and the victim belong. The petitioner is stated to be the person behind the organizing the event. It is alleged that the petitioner developed an intimacy with the victim and committed sexual assault and rape on her after promising to marry her. It is alleged that the fact that the victim was suffering from mental illness and the petitioner was well aware of the same which is clear from the material already collected as part of the investigation. It is alleged that despite knowing about the mental illness of the victim, the petitioner forced the victim into a relationship and thereby committed the offences alleged against him.

Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior counsel appearing on the instructions of Sri.Geo Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that any intimacy and sexual relationship between the petitioner and the victim was purely consensual and between two educated adults and by no stretch of imagination can these allegations even if true, constitute rape as defined in Section 375 of the IPC. He submits that the case of the prosecution that the consent was obtained on the false pretext of marriage also cannot be accepted as admittedly both the petitioner and the victim were married at the relevant time. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 12.10.2021 and further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation into the case.

Sri. C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. It is his specific case that the petitioner enticed the victim into a relationship despite knowing fully well that her capacity to give consent was impaired on account of her mental illness. He submits that the conversations between the petitioner and the victim suggest, very clearly, that the petitioner was fully aware of the mental illness of the victim. It is submitted that despite the above, the petitioner entered into a relationship with the victim even promising to marry her and making her to believe that her relationship with the petitioner will relieve her of her illness.

Sri.P.T.Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the victim who has been impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent, would support the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and also adds that a common friend of the petitioner and the victim had even gone to Bangalore to meet the petitioner to convince him that he should not continue the relationship with the victim especially on account of her mental illness. It is submitted that despite such friendly advise from a common friend, the petitioner continued in his attempt to establish a relationship with the relationship and thereby, he was clearly guilty of the offences alleged against him. It is also submitted that the grant of bail, at this stage, may not be conducive to the investigation of the case as the petitioner is a wealthy and influential person

Having considering the submissions of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 2nd respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to conditions, especially since his continued detention is not necessary for a proper investigation of the case. I also take note of fact that the victim is presently residing in the United Kingdom and there may be no risk of the petitioner approaching the victim in any manner. The case diary which was produced also shows that the investigation to the case has progressed substantially. Taking these facts into account, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail subject to conditions.

In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.304/2021 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam District on every Saturday at 11.00 am until 18.12.2021 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the victim or to interfere with the investigation or influence or intimidate the victim/de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.304/2021 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam District;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Jurisdictional Court;

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.304/2021 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam District may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.