The petitioner is the accused No.20 in crime No.464/2013 of Thumba Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district, for offences alleged under Sections 323, 344, 370, 376(D), 366, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The allegation of the prosecution is that the victim (the defacto complainant), who belongs to Kasargod district, had reached Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station in search of a job and got acquainted with the accused who was an auto- rikshaw driver and offered her a job and entrapped her into a sex racket. It is alleged that several persons had sexually abused her by wrongly confining her in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 for about one-and-a-half month and later this was revealed to a doctor on 12.6.2013, who had examined her after she escaped from the custody of accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, several accused were identified and arrested. Quite recently the petitioner herein (accused No.20) got himself involved in crime No.999/2014 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam district, for offences under Sections 120 (b), 385, 306(1) and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act. The said case, which is referred to in Annexure A7, had got high attention of the media and public and the news in that regard with the photo of the petitioner herein was flashed in the newspapers and on seeing his photographs in the newspaper, the defacto complainant is said to have identified him and that thereafter the investigation in the instant crime arrayed the petitioner herein as accused No.20 in this crime and he was arrested on 18.8.2014. The petitioner has moved this application seeking regular bail by invoking jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Sri.K.P.Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations as raised against him and that the case is falsely foisted on him at the instane of the Police, etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that apart from the merits of the contentions in that regard, he would urge primarily that the investigation as regards the role of the petitioner herein is fully completed and that he has been languishing in judicial custody for the last 63 days and therefore no germane purpose would be subserved by his continued detention and that all other arrested accused persons have been released on bail and so this Court may grant his prayer for bail.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the aforementioned allegation of the petitioner regarding his false implication in the instant crime is absolutely false and incorrect and that the investigation has proceeded on the right lines and the Police have fairly and properly conducted the investigation and that the identity of the accused has been established properly in the investigation process. He would also submit that there are 20 accused in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor was, on the previous occasion, requested to get instructions as to whether the other accused in this case have already been released on bail and as to the number of days that they have been detained in custody for such remand and such other details. The learned Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that among the 20 accused in this case, all the accused, except accused Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 (who are not yet arrested as they are absconding) have been released on bail after being in custodial detention for periods ranging between 30 days to 50 days. It is also pointed out that accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the principal offenders in this crime, were remanded to custody on 30.6.2014 and were released on bail on 29.7.2014 and 31.7.2014 respectively, after being in custodial detention for 30 days and 32 days respectively. Though substantial part of the investigation so far it related to the role of the petitioner herein has been completed, accused Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 are still absconding and therefore the investigation could not be completed. But the Prosecutor has submitted that the identity of the petitioner herein has been well established during the investigation process. The Prosecutor would further urge that in case this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has been kept under judicial custody for 63 days, then the same may be conditioned with necessary safeguards. The Prosecutor in this regard would submit that the offences alleged, regarding rape being part of a sex racket, that has occurred in Thiruvananthapuram district, is very serious allegation and this Court may consider placing a condition that the accused shall not reside or enter into the precincts of the Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District, except for the purpose of compliance with the other conditions of this order.
4. Sri.K.P.Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that the petitioner undertakes that he will fully and effectively comply with all the conditions that are placed by this Court in this order and that are found to be just, reasonable and fair by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that apart from the instant crime, there is another criminal case, in which, the petitioner herein is the accused, which is pending before the Magistrate Court concerned at Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram Revenue district and that he may be permitted to enter into the Thiruvananthapuram Revenue district not only for the purpose of compliance with the other conditions in this order but also for his personal attendance in regard to any step in the investigation or other related proceedings in the pending criminal case in Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District. The learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed to this request made by the petitioner's counsel.
5. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein was arrested in this crime on 18.8.2014 and all other arrested accused persons including the principal offenders in this crime have already been released on bail. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and evaluating the totally of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to order regular bail to the petitioner, but subject to effective and restricted conditions to be placed for protecting the bonafide interest of the prosecution and for ensuring necessary deterrence on the petitioner. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail (if his presence is not required in any other crime) on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned and subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below concerned at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, then he will file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport for travel abroad, he is at liberty to approach the local court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate, as the case may be, is at liberty to consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking sufficient guidance from the principles laid down by this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala reported in 2009 (2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the above said conditions imposed by this Court.
ii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in above said crime between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on every alternate Sundays.
iii. The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation in any manner.
iv. The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
v. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation and report before the aforementioned Investigating Officer as and when required by him.
vi. The petitioner shall not enter into or reside within the territorial limits of Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in this case, except for the purpose of compliance with the other conditions of this order. Needless to say, the petitioner is also permitted to enter into the Thiruvananthapuram Revenue District for the purposes of attending to the investigation or any other aspects related to any criminal cases, which are pending in Thiruvananthapuram District, and for this purpose, the petitioner shall give necessary intimation to the investigating officer about such occasional visits to Thiruvananthapuram District on account of the aforementioned.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
In terms of the above said directions, this Bail Application stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge