The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.2018/2014 of Njarakkal Police Station, Ernakulam district registered for offences punishable under Section 354(B) of IPC and Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody since 19.10.2014 and, therefore, he prays for the benefit of grant of regular bail to him by invoking the remedy under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The brief of the allegations against the petitioner are that, the petitioner, who is the step-father of the lady defacto complainant, aged 30 years, had on 8/10/2014 at about 11 a.m. in the absence of others, caught hold of her waist and pushed her to the bed and attempted to outrage her modesty and thereby committed the aforementioned offences and that the lady defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled caste community. It is in view of these allegations, that the aforementioned offences are alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is employed in the Employees State Insurance Corporation and lives with the mother of the de facto complainant along with the defacto complaint and her brother and sister- in -law for the last over 25 years and that he had brought up the defacto complainant and her other siblings with fatherly affection and the present complaint has been falsely foisted at the instance of the wife of the brother of the defacto complainant. It is submitted that investigation has been completed and that the petitioner has been under custodial detention since 18/10/2014 and, therefore, plea of regular bail may be allowed to the petitioner in this case.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that investigation is almost completed and the petitioner is under judicial custody since 19/10/2014 and that in case this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, stringent conditions may be ordered so as to protect the bona fide interests of the prosecution and to ensure that the petitioner does not have any occasion to live in the house of the defacto complainant, otherwise he would intimidate or influence the defacto complainant and other persons who are in the house of the defacto complainant, which would affect the outcome of the prosecution.
4. Having regard to the submissions made by Sri.M.A.Asif learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, but hedged with stringent conditions to protect the interest of the prosecution.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below concerned and subject to the following conditions:
i). The petitioner shall not reside in the house where the lady defacto complainant is now residing and he shall not make any attempt to have any contact with her or to visit her until the conclusion of the trial in this case.
ii). The petitioner shall not enter into or reside within the territorial limits of the Taluk concerned within whose area the defacto complainant resides until the conclusion of the trial of this case, except for the purpose of compliance with the other conditions in this order and for the purpose of attending to his official work in the ESI hospital,Eloor.
Iii). The Investigating Officer shall, on fortnightly basis for a period of six months from today, depute a woman police constable (not in uniform) to the residence of the defacto complainant and ascertain from her and from other inmates of that house as to whether the de facto complainant is facing any threating or disturbing action from the petitioner. If the Investigating Officer after conducting due enquiries, is convinced about the correctness of such allegation as pointed out before him, then he shall file an appropriate report and necessary application in this proceedings before this Court for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner. It is further ordered that after assessing the fortnightly report, if the investigating officer is satisfied that the practice of deputing a woman police constable need not be continued after six months, he is at liberty to do so. But, if he finds that this practice should be continued for a further period, he is at liberty to do so also.
iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if he is not a holder of passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he shall approach the 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 concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v State of Kerala, (2009(2) KLT 712), notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court.
v) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver nature.
vi) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
vii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.
If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforementioned conditions, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.