Kerala HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Persons Accused Of Assaulting HIV-Positive Women In Their Care Home

The Court was hearing an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for an order of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, 1860.

The bench of Justice C.S. Dias relied on the Supreme Court decision in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another [(2012) 4 SCC 379], where according to the Court it was held, “an order of pre-arrest bail being an extra ordinary privilege, should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Courts has to be properly exercised, after proper application of mind, to decide whether it is a fit case to grant an order of pre-arrest bail. The court has to be prima facie satisfied that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime and his liberty is being misused.”

Advocate Vinod S Pillai, appeared for the Appellant and Public Prosecutor C.S Hrithwik appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

It is the case of the prosecution that while the de facto complainant/victim, who is an HIV patient, was residing in a care home of the accused, they tied her to the window and beat her with a wooden log, and as a result of which she suffered multiple fractures.

The Court noted that the allegation of prosecution prima facie stands corroborated by the medical records that have been handed over to the Court.

The Court took note of the Doctor’s statement who confirmed that the victim had suffered the fractures due to the assault and not due to any affliction. The Court also noted that the Consultant Psychiatrist of the Government Mental Health Centre reported that the victim has stated that she was brutally assaulted by the petitioners/accused.

The Court further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar [2024 KHC OnLine 6137] and quoted, “We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

The Court after taking into consideration the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioners, held that the prima facie materials establish that the petitioners’ are involved in the crime.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.