The court can grant anticipatory bail considering personal circumstances and settlements, even in serious offenses.

O R D E R

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.633/2014 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P. C. The 2nd accused is the father of the petitioner. The case against the 2nd accused has been quashed by this Court.

3. The defacto complainant is a handicapped woman, who had visited the Divine Centre at Potta. She had registered her name in the website of the Divine Centre by inviting matrimonial relationship. It is alleged that the accused contacted her and expressed his willingness to marry the defacto complainant. Mutual visits were made by the parties at their houses. Thereafter, there were frequent contacts between the family members. It is alleged that the petitioner, by assuring that he would marry the defacto complainant, had subjected the defacto complainant to sexual intercourse at 2.30 p.m. on 20.3.2012 at her house. It is also alleged that the accused, by way of several instalments, obtained an amount of ₹4,00,000/- from the mother of the defacto complainant.

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

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Annexure F Medical Report and Annexure G Disability Certificate of the petitioner. Annexure F shows that the petitioner has suffered spontaneous intra cerebral hemorrhage and thereby, he has suffered left hemiplegia.

For a prolonged period he was under the medical treatment at Neuro Surgery ICU of the Pushpa Giri Medical College Hospital, Tiruvalla. Annexure G is the Disability Certificate which shows that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability of 50% in moderate category. Annexure G is issued by the District Medical Board.

6. The report filed by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that the monetary transaction was settled between the parties and that the petitioner has repaid an amount of ₹4,00,000/- to the complainant. It was on that payment, the case against the 2nd accused was quashed by this Court on a settlement between the parties. It is true that the matter is settled. At the same time, this Court cannot endorse the settlement of such a grievous offence between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Considering the physical disability of the petitioner and the seriousness of the illness to which he is put, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the continued investigation of this case. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, because of the subsequent developments in the matter.

7. In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 10 days from today.

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Mondays and Thursdays commencing from 19.06.2017, for a period of three months.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

(iv) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.