Bail may be denied for serious offenses, requiring case-specific analysis despite presumption of innocence.

ORDER

The bail application for the petitioner was considered by me earlier by order dated 15.2.2022 in B.A.No.10103/2021. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.598/2021 of Vandiperiyar Police Station alleging commission of offences under Sections 449 , 302, 376(2)(m)(n), 376AB & 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 (2) r/w. Section 3 (a), 6 r/w. Section 5 (i)(i)(m), 10 r/w. Section 9 (i)(i)(m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012. The matter is now pending consideration before the Fast Track Special Court, Kattapana as S.C.No.474/2021.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are extremely serious and the alleged crime committed by him is extremely gruesome. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed aggravated sexual assault and rape on the victim, who was aged 5 ½ years and when the victim became unconscious, she was hanged using a shawl in the pooja room of her house, following which she died.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been in custody from 4.7.2021 and since the final report has been filed in the matter, his further detention is absolutely not necessary. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and since the trial of the case is unlikely to be completed soon, the petitioner may be directed to be released on bail. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & another; 2022 Live Law (SC) 577. It is contended that in the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the liberty is one of the most valuable rights of the citizen and that there is presumption of innocence until proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The specific reference is made to paragraphs 12 to 18 in the aforesaid judgment in this regard.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor points out the circumstances of the case appearing against the petitioner from the record. It is pointed out that the investigation has clearly established that the petitioner had committed the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that the petitioner has a close association with the family of the victim girl and he had committed the offence misutilising his proximity with the family. It is pointed out that there are allegations of repeated penetrative sexual assault and on 30.6.2021 when the victim had become unconscious, the petitioner had tied a shawl around her neck and had hanged her inside the pooja room of her house, leading to her death.

5. I have considered the contentions raised. Firstly, I must notice that there are no change of circumstances warranting reconsideration of the earlier decision to deny bail to the petitioner. It is settled law that unless there are substantial change of circumstances, successive bail applications are not maintainable. Further it is clear from the decision in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra) that in respect of cases where offences are punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than seven years, each case will have to be dealt with on a case to case basis, keeping in view of the general principles of law set out in the judgment. Though the Supreme Court has found that the bail is the rule and there is presumption of innocence in so far as the accused is concerned, there is clear indication in the said judgment that in the case of serious offences like that in the present case, where heinous offences are involved, the Court retains a substantial discussion in deciding as to whether the accused must be released on bail. Therefore, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and the bail application will stand dismissed.