Can't Shut Eyes To Atrocious Nature Of Offence: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Police Officer Accused Of Raping Minor Girl
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail application of a police officer who is accused of raping a 14-year-old minor girl who is stated to be a member of the scheduled caste. Justice K Babu observed that Courts must not lightly entertain bail applications when "serious offences" are alleged and a "prima facie case" is made out. The court underscored that where the offence complained is...
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail application of a police officer who is accused of raping a 14-year-old minor girl who is stated to be a member of the scheduled caste.
Justice K Babu observed that Courts must not lightly entertain bail applications when "serious offences" are alleged and a "prima facie case" is made out. The court underscored that where the offence complained is of such nature "as to shake the confidence of the public" there bail shall not be granted. It further said:
“While the court cannot ignore the fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, it cannot shut its eyes totally to the atrocious nature of the offence committed. Ultimately, it is a question of harmonizing the two situations and finding the course to be adopted to see that justice is done to both parties.”
The prosecution case is that the accused who is a Special Police Cadet (SPC) Program instructor at the school of the minor girl allegedly seduced her by maintaining relationship over mobile phone. The prosecution claimed that the appellant allegedly took the girl to his house on November 14, 2022 i.e. Children's day, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. As per the prosecution the minor girl is a member of scheduled caste.
The crime has been registered against him under Sections 376(2)(a)(f)(n), 376(3), 354, 354(A)(1)(i)(ii)(iii), 354(B), 354(D)(ii) and 363 of the IPC, various provisions under the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant was arrested on September 26 and has been in judicial custody since then.
The Additional Sessions Court denied his bail, pursuant to which he moved an appeal before the High Court.
The High Court observed that there was no hard and fast rule regarding granting or denying bail and each case has to be considered based on its facts and circumstances.
The Court stated that in serious offences shocking public conscience, bail must not be granted. “Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception, but the accused involved in offences, which are grave, serious and heinous, fall within the exception and not the rule”, added the Court.
It further said, "I have perused the case diary and the report submitted by the Investigating Officer. The material placed by the prosecution would reveal that the appellant is alleged to have committed heinous offences. The prosecution has established a prima facie case. Having considered the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail".
It thereafter dismissed the bail plea, while adding that the appellant is at liberty to seek bail on changed circumstances.
Case Title: Chandrasekharan v State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL.A NO. 2083 OF 2024
Counsel for Appellant: Advocates Nanditha S., P.M.Rafiq, M.Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K.Sasi, Sruthy N. Bhat, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy K.K, Sohail Ahammed Harris P.P., Aaron Zacharias Benny
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Nima Jacob, Advocate Jayaprasad M R
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 740