Court granted bail to the rape accused after 66 days of custodial investigation subjected to certain conditions : High Court of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P TUESDAY THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 24TH PHALGUNA 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 1529 OF 2022 CRIME NO.25 2022 OF KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION KOTTAYAM AGED 29 YEARS KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE S.N. PURAM.P.O KOOROPPADA KOTTAYAM. PIN 686502 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM PIN 682031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NOUSHAD K.A.370 376 376D & 37. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner sexually abused and raped the de facto complainant who is the wife of the the Indian Penal Code. 1st accused in the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that even according to the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant the husband of the de facto complainant had invited others including the petitioner to enter into sexual relationship with the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that if at all the allegations are taken to be true it can only be a consensual act and does not amount to rape. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for 66 days and that his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation in the matter. It is also submitted that the accused Nos. 2 3 & 5 have already been BA No.1529 2022 granted bail by the Sessions Court. It is further submitted that the role of the petitioner is not different from that of the accused who have already been granted bail 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes grant of bail The circumstances appearing in the case are pointed out from the records. It is submitted that the petitioner is accused of very serious offences and he is not entitled to be released on bail. It is submitted that only the 2nd accused has been granted bail 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 66 days and being convinced that his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to conditions. I also take note of the fact that the accused has already been granted bail by In the result the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following the Sessions Court a) The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50 000 Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional BA No.1529 2022 b) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 25 of 2022 of Karukachal Police Station Kottayam District whenever called upon to do so c) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No. 25 of 2022 of Karukachal Police Station Kottayam District d)The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated the investigating officer in Crime No. 25 of 2022 of Karukachal Police Station Kottayam District may file an application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail

Summary: Taking into account that the petitioner has been in custody for 66 days and being convinced that his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation, the Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to conditions and was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. in the case of ABIN VARGHESE vs. STATE OF KERALA (BAIL APPL. NO. 1529 OF 2022) on 15th March, 2022. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the 4th accused alleging commission of offences under Sections 109, 114, 506(1), 370, 376, 376D &amp; 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner sexually abused and raped the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the 1st accused in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that even according to the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant, the husband of the de facto complainant had invited others including the petitioner to enter into sexual relationship with the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that if at all, the allegations are taken to be true, it can only be a consensual act and does not amount to rape. And the petitioner has been in custody for 66 days and that his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation in the matter. Accused Nos. 2, 3 &amp; 5 have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court. He further submitted that the role of the petitioner is not different from that of the accused, who have already been granted bail. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes grant of bail. The circumstances appearing in the case are pointed out from the records. It is submitted that the petitioner is accused of very serious offences and he is not entitled to be released on bail, only the 2nd accused has been granted bail. In the view of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 66 days and being convinced that his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation, the Court opined  that the petitioner can be granted bail, subject to conditions – The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness and he will have to before the investigating officer.