Allowed

Sheshappa B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021Bail Appl./291/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by an accused charged with rape, the High Court of Kerala allowed bail on stringent conditions, noting the final report was filed, the victim was aged 27 not mentally retarded, and considering prison overcrowding due to COVID-19.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties and subject to listed conditions regarding investigation and pandemic norms.

Sheshappa B Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.291 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.483/2020 OF Badiadukka Police Station , Kasargod

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SHESHAPPA B AGED 56 YEARS SON OF MUDARA, RESIDING AT BANJATHADUKA NEERCHAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671324

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671324

¶13

3 XXXX DAUGHTER OF XXX DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.483/2020 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

SMT.MAYA.M.N., PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.No. 291 of 2020 2

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶18

B.A.No. 291 of 2020

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2021

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of Criminal

¶22

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶23

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.483 of 2020 of Badiadukka Police Station. The above case is registered against

¶24

the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 376 (2)(l) IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case is that during February, 2020 and on another day, the petitioner committed rape on the de facto complainant from a rubber estate situated near to his house at Banjyathauka against the will and consent of the de facto complainant and impregnated her.

¶26

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶27

Public Prosecutor.

¶28

B.A.No. 291 of 2020 3

¶29

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner. This Court was not inclined to grant bail when the earlier bail application came up for consideration. The counsel submitted that the alleged incident in this case happened in April 2020 and the First Information Statement was given only on 29.9.2020. The counsel submitted that the victim is admittedly aged 27 and accused is aged 56. The First Information Statement is given when the victim was admitted in a hospital and the matter was reported to the police by the authorities. The counsel submitted that in the First Information Statement there is no case that the victim is a mentally retarded girl. The Investigating Officer has not collected any document also to prove that the victim is a mentally retarded person.

¶30

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. But the Public Prosecutor conceded that the final report in this case is already filed on 23.11.2020. Admittedly the victim is aged 27. The accused is aged 56 years. The First Information

¶31

B.A.No. 291 of 2020 4

¶32

Statement is given when the victim was admitted in a hospital because she was pregnant. The petitioner was arrested on 2.11.2020. Admittedly, the final report is already filed in this case on 23.11.2020. From the report submitted before this Court, there is no documents to show that the victim is a mentally retarded girl.

¶33

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme

¶37

B.A.No. 291 of 2020 5

¶38

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 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.

¶39

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:

¶40

Petitioner shall be released on bail on

¶41

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each

¶42

for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶43

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate

¶44

B.A.No. 291 of 2020 6

¶45

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.

¶46

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶47

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶48

The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with

¶49

respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

¶50

If any of the above conditions are

¶51

B.A.No. 291 of 2020 7

¶52

violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law,

¶53

even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶56

cms

Sheshappa B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheshappa B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.K.Ebrahim Kunju Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar.K Vs State of Kerala

Sajin Sha Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed @ Shavuppa Vs State of Kerala

Bijin Babu Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed @ Shavuppa Vs State of Kerala