High Court Kerala High Court

Saju D.Muttam vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Saju D.Muttam vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3563 of 2009()


1. SAJU D.MUTTAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANILAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :08/07/2009

 O R D E R
                      K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                   ---------------------------
                    B.A. No.3563 of 2009
               ------------------------------------
              Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009

                          O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner

is the accused in Crime No.161/2009 of Kuravilangadu Police

Station, Kottayam.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. This is a case involving peculiar facts. A girl aged

14 years was admitted in Cardinal Specialty Hospital,

Monipally for alleged mental illness. She was admitted on

20/04/2009. She was an inmate of room No.95 in the 5th floor

of the hospital. The accused is stated to be a mentally ill

person. His father filed a petition before the Circle Inspector

of Police, Manimala on 22/04/2009 stating that the petitioner

was showing symptoms of mental disease and that his father

was unable to manage the petitioner. He sought help of the

police for the purpose of forcibly removing the petitioner to a

mental hospital. The police afforded necessary help to the

B.A. No.3563 / 2009
Page numbers

father of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was

admitted in Cardinal Specialty hospital, Monipally on

24/04/2009. Annexure II is the discharge summary dated

22/06/2009 issued by the Cardinal Specialty Centre, which

indicates that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on

24/04/2009 and that he was brought by his father with the help

of police. The discharge summary also shows the diagnosis thus:

“Schizophrenia, Unspecified”. The petitioner was treated in the

hospital and he was discharged on 10/06/2009.

4. The incident occurred on 1/05/2009. The prosecution

case is that on 1/05/2009 at 12.30 hours, the petitioner

committed rape on the victim girl. The girl did not report the

matter to anybody. After discharge from the hospital on

18/05/2009, she was asked to visit the hospital again, but she

did not do so. Later, she was examined by the doctor on

1/06/2009. It would appear that the girl had reported to her

relatives about the incident and they wanted to ascertain the

facts and to conduct pregnancy test. Pregnancy was ruled out,

but it was reported to the doctor that she was raped by the

B.A. No.3563 / 2009
Page numbers

petitioner on 1/05/2009. The F.I.R. was registered only on

20/06/2009.

5. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in these

circumstances apprehending arrest in the case. The learned

Public Prosecutors opposed the Bail Applications.

6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I

am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the

petitioner. If the relief is denied to the petitioner, there is every

likelihood that the petitioner would be arrested and detained in

judicial custody. That would not serve any purpose. It cannot be

said that the petitioner would try to influence the witnesses or

intimidate them. If the petitioner is detained in judicial custody,

sometimes, his illness may aggravate and it may become

necessary to shift him to the mental hospital. On the other

hand, if he is granted anticipatory bail, it would not affect the

investigation of the case. All relevant facts are to be investigated

upon by the investigating agency. For that purpose, the

cooperation of the petitioner is also necessary.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

B.A. No.3563 / 2009
Page numbers

petitioner is prepared to appear before the police on any number

of occasions and he is prepared to abide by any conditions that

may be imposed by this Court.

8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, there will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the

petitioner in connection with Crime No.161/2009 of

Kuruvilangadu Police Station, the officer in charge of the police

station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for

Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the

satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following

conditions:

A) The petitioner shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M.
on all Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, till the
final report is filed or until further orders;

B) The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;

C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.

D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or
indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

B.A. No.3563 / 2009
Page numbers

E) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be
cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm