Allowed

Ratheesh S.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2020Bail Appl./796/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Considering the victim's subsequent claim of consent, cohabitation, and public health norms during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions including appearance for interrogation, arrest on bail bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, cooperation with investigation, and adherence to pandemic guidelines.

Ratheesh S.R. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.796 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2246/2019 DATED 09-01-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO.884/2019 OF Town West Police Station , Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶9

RATHEESH S.R. AGED 37 YEARS S/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, SANTINILAYAM HOUSE, P.O.KIRALUR, ERUMPETTY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESDING AT MANKUTHI PARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR MUNDAYUR TEMPLE.P.O, PERAMANGALAM, PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680545

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A.No. 796 OF 2020 2

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶19

B.A.No.796 of 2020

¶20

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶23

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶24

Petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.884 of

¶25

2019 of Thrissur Town West Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable

¶26

under Sections 376 (2) (n), 406, 420 and 506 of IPC.

¶27

The prosecution case is that on 9.1.2019 at 11 a.m.,

¶28

the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant at her bed room, and recorded the same in video camera. It is

¶29

also alleged that the petitioner received Rs.5,80,000/- and 47

¶30

B.A.No. 796 OF 2020 3

¶31

sovereigns of gold ornaments by blackmailing her. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offence.

¶32

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

¶33

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted as such, no offence is made out. The counsel further submitted that now the petitioner and the victim girl are living together as per Annexure A2 marriage and settlement agreement. The counsel also submitted that Annexure A3 is an affidavit filed by the defacto complainant in which, she states that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are living together. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor even though, opposed the bail application, submitted that, if this Court is granting him bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶35

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this

¶36

case, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent

¶37

B.A.No. 796 OF 2020 4

¶38

conditions. Admittedly, the petitioner and the victim are major. The victim now says that the sexual intercourse was with her consent. It is true that the offence under Section 376 IPC cannot be compounded. But the counsel submitted based on the affidavit of the victim and Annexure A agreement that they are now living together. Hence, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶39

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶40

Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo

¶41

Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶42

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

¶43

B.A.No. 796 OF 2020 5

¶44

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.

¶45

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:

¶46

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶47

After interrogation, if the Investigating

¶48

Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the

¶49

like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

¶50

The petitioner shall appear before the

¶51

Investigating Officer for interrogation as and

¶52

B.A.No. 796 OF 2020 6

¶53

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.

¶54