Petitioners are the accused in S.C.No.476 of 2013 pending before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. 2. It seems that the above Criminal Revisions have been filed by challenging the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., by which the bail of the petitioners has been cancelled.
3. It is alleged that by offering a lift, a girl under the age of 16 was taken in a car and thereafter she was supplied with some toffee, after the consumption of which she became totally unconscious. It is alleged that she was kidnapped from lawful guardianship and subjected to gang rape. The petitioners were enlarged on bail by imposing conditions. It is alleged that they have violated the conditions of bail and they have indulged in causing further harassment to the girl, her mother and other family members. It is alleged that she is finding it difficult to pursue her studies and to go to the school as there is severe threat from the part of the petitioners and their associates. It is also alleged that during nights, there were attacks also towards the house of the defacto complainant.
4. It seems that the learned Public Prosecutor before the court below has filed a petition seeking cancellation of their bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. When the matter came to the notice of the court below, an enquiry was ordered by the court below through the investigating officer. It seems that the investigating officer has conducted a so called enquiry by questioning the girl, her mother and other relatives. It seems that the investigating officer has come to the conclusion that there were no evidence to show such interferences from the part of the petitioners. It seems that they have complaints that there were frequent interference into their peaceful life from the part of the petitioners with a view to getting the matter settled.
5. The learned Sessions Judge has found that two versions are there. One of such versions from the part of the investigating officer is that there is no evidence to show such interference and the other version from the girl and her mother that there were frequent threats from the part of the petitioners. According to the victim, the petitioners and their associates use to stare at her and also are intimidating her. The learned Sessions Judge has opted to accept the complaint from the girl and her mother and passed the impugned order. It seems that the girl and her mother have a specific case that such frequent interference and harassment from the part of the petitioners and their associates are with a view to forcing the girl and her mother to withdraw from the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has taken the view that there is absolutely nothing to disbelieve the versions of the girl and her mother.
6. It seems that the learned Sessions Judge has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioners and notices were issued on them. They were heard before passing the impugned order. It seems that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly passed the impugned order by invoking the power under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. In a case like this, when such two versions are available, the court has to take the version given by the weaker section. As in the case of the accused persons, the victims are also entitled to equal justice. The victims should not remain as a forgotten mass in criminal trial. On going through the facts and circumstances, I am also satisfied that the petitioners are liable to be retained for having a fair trial of the case. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly cancelled the bail. I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. The impugned order is not liable to be interfered with in any manner.
In the result, these Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE DSV/20/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge