Kerala HC validates bail cancellation of man accused of raping minors each time while out on bail

Last updated:Nov 6, 2024 4:04 PM IST

The court noted that despite a bail condition prohibiting contact with the victim, the suspect violated this condition by living with her and engaging in sexual relations under the promise of marriage, only to later withdraw from it.

The petitioner was initially granted bail in 2022 under certain conditions, including a directive that he not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses. (PTI)

The Kerala High Court has upheld the cancellation of bail granted to a man named Nibin Khan, who was accused of raping the same minor twice while out on bail. A single judge bench of Justice A Badharudeen rejected Khan’s plea seeking to quash the bail cancellation order passed by the special court.

The petitioner was initially granted bail in 2022 under certain conditions, including the directive that he not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor may he tamper with evidence or contact the victim or her family members. However, Khan allegedly violated this condition while out on bail.

Between September and October 2023, the petitioner allegedly took the de facto complainant with the intention of convincing her to withdraw from the prosecution, and even performed sexual acts with her during this period. This led to the filing of a second case, with charges under Sections 354, 376(2)(n), and 195A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

The High Court had granted interim bail to the suspect in December 2023 for the second offense after it was highlighted that he was in a romantic relationship with the victim and was planning to marry her. But the marriage could not be solemnized and as a result, the bail granted to the accused was canceled by the special court.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the continuing relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, which led to the first offence, the court should not have canceled the bail. The petitioner and complainant had reportedly decided to live together and intended to get married as indicated in a marriage registration, although the marriage did not materialize.

The court considered the key question: ‘whether the Special Court has canceled bail for justifiable reasons and that requires interference?’ In response, the court emphasizes the importance of complying with bail conditions, especially when the suspect has been entrusted with liberty pending trial. Pointing out well-established principles of law, the court stated: “If the accused abuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activities, violating the condition(s) of bail, that is a parent circumstance for granting bail to withdraw.”

The court further emphasized that “the legal situation is well arranged. Where a court grants bail after imposing conditions, violation of any of the conditions in a bail order would lead to cancellation of bail by invoking the power under Section 439 (2) of Cr.PC.”

The court noted that the petitioner was released on bail with the condition that he should not contact the victim or her family. In clear violation of this condition, the petitioner took the actual complainant, lived with her and subjected her to sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage. Despite having served notice under the Special Marriage Act to get married, the petitioner later withdrew from the marriage.

The court underlined that bail is not a right but a concession that can be revoked if it is misused or if the conduct of the accused obstructs the course of justice, citing the judgment in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995). Considering the seriousness of the offense and the subsequent criminal activity, the court concluded that the Special Court’s decision to revoke Khan’s bail was justified.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, reinforcing the principle that bail should be revoked when there are compelling reasons that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial.