Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards'

Kerala High Court rejected the bail application of a police officer accused of raping a 14-year-old girl under his supervision as part of the Student Police Cadet (SPC) program. Justice K. Babu held that the allegations were severe, the evidence prima facie established a case, and the larger public interest warranted denial of bail at this stage.

The accused, Chandrasekharan, a 52-year-old SPC instructor, was charged with multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The incident occurred on November 14, 2022, Children's Day, when the accused allegedly lured the victim, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, to a private house under the pretext of a birthday celebration. According to the prosecution, he committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault during this time. The victim disclosed the assault during a counseling session at her school, which led to the police filing the First Information Statement (FIS).

Justice Babu emphasized that while bail is a rule and jail is an exception, this principle does not extend to cases involving heinous crimes such as sexual violence against minors. The Court observed, “Where the offense complained is of such nature as to shake the confidence of the public, bail shall not be granted lightly. This is particularly relevant in cases where a position of authority is grossly misused to exploit vulnerable victims.”

The Court noted the gravity of the accusations, the position of trust held by the accused, and the potential impact on public confidence in law enforcement programs like the SPC.

The defense argued for bail on the grounds of procedural delays, pointing out that the investigation was complete, and a charge sheet had been filed on November 5, 2024. They contended that continued detention was unnecessary. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the need to ensure witness protection and prevent tampering with evidence.

Justice Babu outlined factors relevant to bail applications, such as:
The nature of the allegations and evidence.
The potential threat to witnesses.
The likelihood of the accused absconding.
Public confidence and the gravity of the offense.
The Court remarked, “While the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount, the atrocious nature of the offense requires a balanced approach to ensure justice for the victim.”

The Court dismissed the bail application, allowing the appellant to seek bail under changed circumstances, if any arise in the future. The judgment reinforces the principle that the rights of the accused must be balanced with the gravity of the offense and the need for public confidence in the justice system.

Date of Decision: November 21, 2024.