By Tanishka Shah

In an appeal filed by accused under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court, which was dismissed, bail was denied to the accused, acknowledging that while the court must respect the fundamental right to liberty of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, it also cannot overlook the atrocious nature of the offense committed. It was alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(a)(f)(n), 376(3), 354, 354(A)(1)(i)(ii)(iii), 354(B), 354(D)(ii) and 363 of the Penal code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 4(1) r/w Section (3)(a)(c), 6(1) r/w Section 5(a)(ii)(iii)(iv), 5(l)(k)(p), 10 r/w Section 9(a)(ii)(iii)(iv), 9(c)(l)(p), 12 r/w Section 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The accused was not a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. 

The victim was a member of the scheduled caste. The accused was a police officer working as SPC Instructor, entrusted with the responsibility of training the students at the school of the 14 year old victim in the SPC course. The accused seduced the victim by maintaining a relationship over mobile phone. By offering birthday treat, he took her to a house near Cheraman mosque, Kodungallur, and committed assault on her. The Court noted that the accused was arrested and has been in judicial custody since then. The Court said that the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 

The Court emphasized several key factors to be considered when deciding bail applications. These include the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment if convicted, and the evidence presented by the prosecution. Additionally, the Court must evaluate whether there is a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with witnesses or posing a threat to the complainant or other witnesses. Another critical factor is the likelihood of the accused appearing for trial or the risk of them fleeing from justice. The character, behavior, and social standing of the accused, as well as any unique circumstances surrounding them, also play a role. Finally, the larger interest of the public or the State and other relevant considerations must be taken into account to ensure that justice is upheld.

The Court clarified that there is no fixed formula for granting or denying bail. Each case must be assessed on its own facts and merits, with judicial discretion applied judiciously and not arbitrarily. In cases of serious offences where prima facie evidence exists, bail applications should not be readily entertained.

Where the nature of the offence is such that it undermines public confidence, bail should be denied. While the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, the Court must also account for the grave nature of the offence. Striking a balance between these competing considerations is essential to ensure justice for all parties involved.

After reviewing the case diary and the Investigating Officer’s report, the Court concluded that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, indicating the accused’s involvement in heinous crimes. Consequently, the Court denied the bail application.

Case Title: Chandrasekharan v. State of Kerala
Citation:   CRL.A NO. 2083 OF 2024
Click here to read/download the judgment