IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 16TH MAGHA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 1287 OF 2025 CRIME NO.1344/2024 OF Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/S:

SONUMON AGED 19 YEARS S/O. SURENDRAN KRIPA BHAVAN, KIDARAKUZHY, MANNAYAM,MOONANAKUZHY P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695615 BY ADV RAVI KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.

NOUHAD.K.A, SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------

B.A.No.1287 of 2025 -------------------------------

Dated this the 05^th day of February, 2025

O R D E R

This Bail Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1344/2024 of of Karamana Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 64, 74, 75(1)(i)(ii) (iv), 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 4 r/w 3(a), 8 r/w 7, 132 r/w 11(iva)(v) of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(va)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST PoA Act).

3. The prosecution case is that, the accused with an intention to rape the the survivor, who is a minor, followed her and later, talked to her over phone and subsequently, on 30.11.2024, the accused raped her. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the victim.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

5. Since, the offences under the SC/ST PoA Act is alleged, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to issue notice to the victim as per order dated 30.01.2025. The Public Prosecutor submitted that, the notice is served to the victim.

Even then, there is no appearance for the victim.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is in custody from 03.12.2024. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is aged only 19 years and the victim is aged 16 years. They were in a love relationship. It is submitted that the allegation of rape is not correct.

7. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious and this Court may not release the petitioner on bail.

8. This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. This Court also perused Annexure-A1 FIR and the FIS. As per the FIS Statement, the victim stated that, she acquainted with the petitioner from the premises of Trivandrum Medical College Hospital, when her mother was admitted in the hospital. She met the petitioner when she went near the shop at Medical College Hospital for getting tea. The acquaintance became a love relationship. It is stated that, the petitioner came to the house of the victim occasionally and had sex with the victim. Subsequently, when the victim's parents went to the house of the petitioner for fixing marriage the petitioner informed that he is not interested in it. Hence, the complaint is filed. I do not want to make any observation about the same. The petitioner is in custody from 03.12.2024. Petitioner is aged only 19 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions.

9. 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.

10. Moreover, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

“21.