Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 1107 of 2014 of Munambom Police Station registered for offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4,8 and 14 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has preferred this application for Regular Bail invoking the power of this Court under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. 2. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the accused had promised to marry the minor girl, sexually exploited her and that he had taken nude photographs of the victim girl using mobile phone camera. It is also alleged that the incident which led to the registration of the crime was taken place during the period from 13-12-2013 to July 2014 in the house of the de facto complainant. The petitioner was arrested on 19-8-2014 and remanded to judicial custody on 20-08-2014.
3. Sri.B.H.Mansoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner and the de facto complainant/minor girl were in love with each other and they have decided to marry. The family of the de facto complainant were objected to the relationship and the de facto complainant's uncle is a highly influential person in that locality. He further submits that the petitioner has been under judicial custody for the last 67 days and that he is prepared to comply with any stringent conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation has been not fully completed. The requisite recovery has been effected and that the statement under Sec. 164 (3) of Cr.P.C. has not been recorded by the Magistrate. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in case this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, the same may be conditioned with necessary safeguards to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution and also to ensure that the petitioner has no reasonable opportunity to influence or threaten the de facto complainant or in any way influence or tamper with the evidence, especially, because the statement of the victim under Sec. 164 (3) has not been recorded by the Magistrate.
5. The learned Public prosecutor would also submit that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 1458/2013 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the offences in that crime are bailable offences.
6. Hence, this Court thinks it necessary that the petitioner shall be directed not to enter into or reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Ernakulam District until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in this case as the petitioner and the de facto complainant are living within the District and the place of occurrence is also in Ernakulam District.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail 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 concerned and subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Ernakulam Revenue District until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in this case except for the compliance of other conditions in the bail order or for thepurpose of attending before Courts in Ernakulam District in connection with any other case pending against him.
ii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court 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 court concerned 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.
iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required..
iv. The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation in any manner.
v. The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
vi. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
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.
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2014.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ani/