Court Cannot Shut Its Eyes To Atrocious Nature Of The Offence: Kerala HC Dismisses Bail Plea Of Police Officer Accused Of Raping Minor
|The Kerala High Court dismissed the bail application filed by a police officer accused of allegedly raping a minor after observing that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the atrocious nature of the offence committed.
The Court refused to grant bail noting the “heinous offence” allegedly committed by a police officer (Appellant) in the capacity of a drill instructor in the victim’s school and observed that the “courts should not lightly entertain the bail application when there is a prima facie case.” The Appellant had allegedly committed offences punishable 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, Sections 4(1) r/w Section (3)(a)(c), 6(1) r/w Section 5(a)(ii)(iii)(iv), 5(l)(k)(p), 10 r/w Section 9(a)(ii)(iii)(iv), 9(c)(l)(p), 12 r/w Section 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Babu observed, “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.”
Advocate Nanditha S. appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Jayaprasad M R represented the Respondents.
The prosecution alleged that the victim was a 14 year-old student undergoing training under the Appellant in the SPC course, where the Appellant was SPC Drill Instructor in the school where the victim was studying. It was alleged that the incident happened on Children's day when the Appellant committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim after he had already seduced the victim by maintaining relationship over mobile phone.
The Appellant was arrested in September 2024 and had been in judicial custody since then. His application seeking regular bail was already dismissed by the Trial Court.
The High Court noted that the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
“There is no hard and fast rule regarding granting or refusing bail. Each case has to be considered on the relevant facts and circumstances and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner,” the Court explained.
“Where the offence complained is of such nature as to shake the confidence of the public, bail shall 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,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “Having considered the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. The Criminal Appeal lacks merits, and it stands dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Chandrasekharan v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:86786)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Nanditha S., P.M.Rafiq, M.Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K.Sasi, Sruthy N. Bhat, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy K.K, Sohail Ahammed Harris and Aaron Zacharias Benny
Respondents: Advocate Jayaprasad M R; Public Prosecutor Nima Jacob