Merely Because Trial Court Failed To Frame Charges In Stipulated Time Doesn't Entitle Accused To Bail Considering Nature & Gravity Of Offence: Kerala HC

Justice Sophy Thomas stated that the accused was not entitled to bail since there were concurrent findings against him. It stated that the accused will have to face the trial as an under-trial prisoner due to the nature and gravity of the alleged offences against him. 

“Since there is concurrent findings of the trial court, as well as of this Court, that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the petitioner has to face the trial as an under- trial prisoner, just because of the fact that the trial court failed to frame charge within one month from the date of order in BA No.11649/2023, this bail application is not liable to be allowed. There is sufficient reason for the trial court for not framing charge within the time stipulated.

The petitioner was accused of rape and aggravated sexual assault and was charged under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376 AB and 506(i) of the IPC, Sections 4(2) read with 3(a), 3(d), 6 r/w 5(l), 5(m), 5(n), 8 r/w 7 and 10 r/w 9(l), 9(m), 9(n) of the POCSO Act and IT Act.

Considering the gravity and nature of the offences alleged against the petitioner, the Trial rejected his bail application and stated that he had to face trial as an under-trial prisoner.

When the petitioner approached the High Court for bail, his bail application was rejected by the High Court. It directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case within six months of framing charges. The High Court also directed the Trial Court that if charges were not framed, it has to be framed within one month from the date of issuance of the order.

The petitioner has again approached the High Court with a bail application due to the failure of the Trial Court to frame charges within the stipulated time.

The petitioner's counsel contended that charges were not framed despite the direction of the High Court earlier. It was also argued that there was no medical evidence to prove that the victim was subjected to penetrative sexual assault.

The Court stated that all these contentions have to be considered by the Trial Court by taking evidence. It also stated sufficient explanation was given by the Trial Court for not framing the charges against the accused within the stipulated time as directed by the High Court earlier.

The Court stated that the Registry has verified that the Trial Court has framed charges. Thus, the Court dismissed the bail application with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the case within six months from the date of framing of the charges.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate M R Sarin

Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayanan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 200

Case title: YYY v State of Kerala

Case number: BAIL APPL. NO. 1204 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order