Sarath M.S. vs State Of Kerala

C. Jayachandran, J

Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.671/2023 of Thrikkakara Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 450, 354, 354-B, 376 and 376(2)(n), read with Sections 3, 4, 5(I), 6, 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-F Order, which cancelled his bail in the said crime, on the allegation that he trespassed into the house of the victim girl and attempted to influence/intimidate her. His case that he was permanently residing at Malappuram after obtaining the bail was disbelieved by the trial court, on the premise that he was immediately arrested after the incident, from Ernakulam. Thus, the trial court found that the petitioner violated condition nos.3 and 5 of the bail order in C.M.P.No.321/2023. It was accordingly that the bail was cancelled.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parameters considered by the trial court for cancellation of bail are not in accordance with law, it was incidentally submitted that the petitioner was arrested in the second crime (which led to the cancellation of bail in the earlier crime) on 04.05.2024 and that he has been in custody for the past nine months. Learned counsel would signify an undertaking on the part of the petitioner that no similar incident will be repeated and that he will not enter the district where the victim girl is residing.

If that be so, the question as to whether the cancellation of bail, vide Annexure-F Order, is strictly legal, or not, need not be considered. This Court is of the opinion that, in view of the efflux of time from the date of incarceration in the subsequent crime, the petitioner can be released on bail. It is noticed that the original crime is of the year 2023, wherein serious offences are alleged, wherefore, it is not likely to be scheduled for trial immediately. It would not be, therefore, conducive to continue the incarceration of the petitioner, on the premise that he has attempted to contact the victim of the crime.

That apart, learned Public Prosecutor made available a copy of the statement made by the victim girl, aged 17 years, in the second crime. The allegation is that after obtaining bail, the petitioner, on 15.02.2024, by about 1.00 a.m, reached the house of the victim, through the sunshade and he wanted the victim girl to open the door, as otherwise she was threatened that the petitioner will commit suicide. Accordingly, the room was opened by her and their conversation was heard and detected by her father, who was sleeping in the adjacent room. Further allegations are to the effect that the petitioner used to follow the defacto complainant at the bus stand, etc., and extended threats of suicide, unless she restores her relationship with the petitioner.

This Court notice that, going by the statement given by the victim girl, there is no allegation to the effect that the petitioner attempted to influence or intimidate her for the purpose of deposing in favour of the petitioner in the first case, or for that matter, to tamper with the evidence therein. The allegation that the petitioner is following the defacto complainant on the premise that he wanted to restore his relation with that lady, as otherwise he will commit suicide, is a different issue altogether, to be dealt with separately and appropriately. It is doubtful whether the cancellation of bail, vide Annexure-F Order, could be sustained, in the afore discussed factual matrix.

On the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner need not be incarcerated anymore.

Accordingly, Annexure-F Order is set aside and the bail granted in Crime No.671/2023 of Thrikkakara Police Station (Vide Crl.M.P.No.321/2023) is restored on the conditions stipulated in that bail order, coupled with the following additional conditions:

(i). The petitioner shall not follow the defacto complainant girl aged 17 years, against whom rape has been alleged in Crime No.671/2023, and shall not cause any disturbance to her, in any manner.

(ii). The petitioner shall not enter Ernakulam district, except for the purpose of appearing before the trial court, or for appearing before the Investigating Officer, when called upon to do so.

(iii).  In  case  of  violation  of  any  of  the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(iv). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the trial court.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of as above.