IMPORTANT POINTS:
• It will be more appropriate to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227, when egregious errors are seen committed by the subordinate courts. In such matters, where suo motu judicial action is required to correct such egregious errors of the subordinate courts, then it may be more appropriate to resort to the jurisdiction of Constitutional supervision and superintendence as per Art. 227 than the inherent statutory powers under Sec. 482 of CrPC
• The KELSA authorities may also seriously examine whether interim compensation could be considered in the petitioner's case as per the scheme for compensation
• The State Government may seriously consider whether some good training facility and employment opportunity could be extended to the petitioner victim, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community so that she could be equipped with skills to gain employability and the State Government may also seriously consider whether she could be accommodated in some gainful employment. The KELSA authorities are also requested to examine the feasibility of accommodating the petitioner in some governmental or private training centres so that her skills could be upgraded for gaining employability.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The petitioner is the victim in the matter in SC No. 211 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (For the Trial of Cases Relating to Atrocities & Sexual Violence Against Women and Children), Ernakulam. The abovesaid Sessions Case arose out of Crime No. 1494/2017 of North Paravur Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 363, 376(h)(n)(i), 506(i) of the IPC and Secs. 3(a) r/w 4, Sec. 5(j)(ii),(l), (q) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) Act. The 5th respondent herein is the sole accused in the abovesaid case.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that when the victim who belongs to the Scheduled Caste was a minor aged about 17 years, she was repeatedly subjected to forced sexual intercourse and rape by the 5th respondent accused in a series of incidents and later she got pregnant and even thereafter the 5th respondent had subjected her to rape, etc. It is stated that the 5th respondent has extremely adverse criminal antecedents and he has been the accused in 9 other crimes, details of which are mentioned in paragraph No. 11 of the statement dated 3.4.2019 filed by the Investigating Officer in the present case. Due to medical complications, abortion of the foetus could not be performed on the petitioner and she had given birth to a girl child, etc. Now she is residing in North Paravur along with parents who belongs to the marginalised sections of the society. The victim now aged 19 years is educated upto Std. IX only. Her father is a coolie.

3. According to the petitioner, on 8.8.2018 when the Sessions Court had issued summons for the appearance of the accused and after the case was over, even in the Court premises the 5 th respondent accused had intimidated and threatened her that she should withdraw the case as otherwise her life would be at peril, and later when she had walked out, the 5th respondent followed her and intimidated and threatened her and he had blocked the petitioner and her sister then on a scooter. Immediately the petitioner had reported the incidents to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KELSA), Ernakulam, who in turn had reported the matter to the Ernakulam Central Police Station, thereby Crime No. 1743/2018 was registered by the Police Station by arraying the 5th respondent herein as accused therein for offences under Secs. 341, 506(i) of the IPC, as discernible from Ext.P-3. Thereafter the Prosecution has filed Crl. M.P. No. 289/2018 in the abovesaid S.C. No. 211/2018 before the abovesaid Sessions Court, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 5th respondent for violation of bail conditions ordered in Ext.P-1 bail order dated 5.1.2018 issued in favour of the said accused.

4. The Sessions Court concerned has now issued the impugned Ext.P-5 order dated 27.10.2018, on the abovesaid application to cancel the bail of the 5th respondent. Two grounds are essentially raised by the Court below to reject the application to cancel the bail of the 5th respondent. Firstly that the incident of intimidation and threatening of victim is already subject matter of Ext.P-3 Crime No. 1743/2018 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, which requires investigation and finalisation in accordance with law and that therefore it may not be right and proper for that Court to get into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations raised by the victim in the said subsequent crime. Second ground is that the victim has already been granted police protection on the basis of Ext.P-4 order dated 10.8.2018 as per the orders passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 27517/2018 filed by the victim herein, in respect of her apprehension of threat and intimidation from the very same accused.

5. It is now evident that prior to the registration of the crime which led to the Sessions Case, the 5th respondent accused was involved in 9 other crimes, details of which are mentioned in the No. 11 of the statement filed by the Investigating Officer in