C. Jayachandran, J.
1. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.865/2024 of Valancheryy Police Station, Malappuram. The offences alleged are under Sections 363, 376, 384 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner abducted the victim woman on 07.06.2024 and subjected her to physical abuse including rape, besides recording the video footage, so as to blackmail her. The prosecution would also allege that the petitioner extorted money and gold ornaments from the victim, thus committing the offences enumerated above.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2024 and that, he was in custody for the past more than fifteen days. Learned counsel would specifically invite the attention of this Court to the whatsapp chat between the petitioner and de facto complainant/victim, produced at Annexure-A1, to point out that the de facto complainant, a married woman, had, in fact, eloped with the petitioner and that too, based on her request, on account of the torture she suffered from her husband. The various chats, where the de facto complainant/victim wanted the petitioner to take her away from her husband, is specifically pointed out. State of affairs being the same, the offences alleged would not lie, is the submission made by the learned counsel.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor would oppose this bail application by pointing out that the petitioner is in custody only for the past fifteen days. The investigation has not proceeded with substantially. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that the victim/de facto complainant was later murdered by her husband, on 16.08.2024.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application. The contents of Annexure-A1 whatsapp chat is taken stock of for the purpose of prima facie satisfaction, though its ultimate proof is something to evolve during the course of trial. This Court also notice that the petitioner has been in custody for the past fifteen days, thus, serving the purpose of interrogation. It may be true that the interrogation has not progressed substantially and that the Final Report has not been filed. However, no specific purpose, warranting the presence of the petitioner, so as to enable progress of investigation, could be pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, so as to dissuade this Court from granting bail. The subsequent event of the de facto complainant being murdered by her husband also has a bearing in taking a call as to whether the bail application has to be granted or not.
In the result, this bail application is allowed and there will be a direction to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction;
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;
(v) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the trial court at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court on the date of execution of the bond;
(vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the trial court.
(viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
