Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; personal liberty must be protected unless justified by circumstances.

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .

2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 860/2024 of Kunnamangalam Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 376(2) (1), 376 (2)(a), 420, 506 of the IPC and Sec. 92(d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act .

3. The petitioner is aged 71 years. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant is a relative of the petitioner. The defacto complainant alleged that her marriage did not happen in time. She believed that her marriage did not happen because of her horoscope. In 2001, she went with the petitioner to Guruvayur to conduct certain poojas to relieve from the obstruction in marriage. She alleged that when the petitioner became sick, they were forced to take a hotel room and from the hotel room, the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant. It is alleged that based on that incident, the petitioner continuously harassed the defacto complainant physically. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offences.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor and also the counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

5. This Court perused the first information statement submitted by the defacto complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner is aged 71 now and the defacto complainant is aged 61. The alleged sexual harassment is from 2001 to 2018. It seems that the defacto complainant has also got a case that her money is also misappropriated by the petitioner. There is a long delay in filing the complaint. Of course, this is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer, at the appropriate stage.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions. The counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submitted that there is threat from the side of the petitioner and if this Court release the petitioner on bail, he will go abroad and he will not be available for trial. To protect the same, there can be a direction to the petitioner to surrender his passport, if any. I also make it clear that if any case is registered against the petitioner alleging physical assault to the victim in this case, the investigating officer or victim is free to file appropriate application before the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail and if such an application is filed, the jurisdictional court is free to pass appropriate orders, even though this order is passed by this Court.

6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870], after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

7. Recently the Apex Court in Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2021(5)KHC 353] considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder.

“12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputat