Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.353 of 2014 of Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod district for offences under Sections 376, 417 and 366 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(i),(xi) and 3(ii)&(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. The allegations against the petitioner by the prosecution are that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in love affair in the year 2013 and that the petitioner had promised to marry her and they had gone to Kanyakumari and stayed in a room for two days and that both of them had sexual intercourse and they came to the house of the de facto complainant at Kasaragod in Chakkittadukkam Belur Village and that later she delivered a child in June 2014 and later she lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Ambalathara Police Station on 12.09.2014 alleging commission of the offences under Sections 366, 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is totally innocent of all the allegations and that he was arrested by the police on 16.08.2014 and he is in custody since the last 56 days. The petitioner's application for bail preferred before the jurisdictional Magistrate has been rejected as per Annexure A1 order dated 20.08.2014 on the ground that as the investigation is at preliminary stage then and considering the serious nature of the allegations.
4. Sri.P.V.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even going by the allegations raised in the First Information lodged by the de facto complainant and the materials so far collected by the investigating agency, none of the offences neither under the Indian Penal Code or under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would lie against the petitioner. At any rate, he would submit that the investigation has been completed and that as the petitioner has been in custody since the last 56 days, further custodial detention is unwarranted for the purpose of investigation or otherwise. It is in the facts and circumstances that the petitioner has preferred this application for regular bail by invoking the remedy under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Heard Sri.P.V.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost over and that in case this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, the same may be ordered only with necessary safeguards so as to protect the interest of the prosecution.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances emerging in this matter, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, as the investigation is almost complete and as the petitioner has been in custody since the last 56 days, further custodial detention of the petitioner for investigation purpose may not be warranted.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Hosdurg, Kasaragod and subject to the following conditions:
i) 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.
ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.353 of 2014 of Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod district between 10 a.m and 11 a.m on every Sundays till such period as may be required by the Investigating Officer.
iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature.
iv) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
v) 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.
Vdv /True Copy// P.A to Judge Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.