Alexander Thomas, J.

1. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No. 856/2019 of Panangad Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 376 and 384 of the IPC and Sec. 3(2)v, 3(i)(w)(i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner aged 49 years is a married man with family, consisting of wife and a child and that he does not belong to SC/ST community and that the lady de facto complainant aged 45 years, belongs to Scheduled Caste community and she is a practising advocate and he introduced himself in the court premises seeking certain legal assistance and later he represented that he is an unmarried man and that he is interested to marry the lady and that he would settle about 12 cents of immovable property in Nettoor village in her favour and that thereafter, their marriage could be conducted and that the lady had also disclosed her personal details, including the fact that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that she believed his versions and assurances and he wanted her to go to Nettoor village to see the immovable property and she was taken to his house, when there was none and then he closed the door and had committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Later, he had consistently threatened her and subjected her to sexual intercourse on various other occasions, etc. and that thereby the petitioner has committed the abovesaid offences. Further that the petitioner was fully aware that the lady belongs to SC community. That much later, the lady realized that the petitioner is actually a married man with family and that he was having dishonest intention right from the commencement of their relationship to play fraud on her and to cheat her.

2. The petitioner has been arrested on 26.06.2019 and has been under judicial custody since then. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and that a reading of the FIS would clearly indicate that the alleged incidents narrated therein, if true, could have happened only on the basis of consent between the parties. Further that, since the petitioner has already suffered detention for the last 64 days, this Court may order to release him on regular bail, subject to any stringent conditions.

3. Heard Smt. C.K. Prameela, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, Sri. Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri. John S. Ralph, learned advocate appearing for the lady defacto complainant.

4. The counsel for the petitioner/accused has pointed out that the allegations raised against the petitioner are factually wrong and incorrect and further that the investigation has been duly completed to its entirety and that Final Report/Charge Sheet has already been filed on 26/09/2019 before the Special Sessions Court, notified to deal with SC/ST (POA Act cases) concerned and that no effective purpose is to be subserved by the continued incarceration of the petitioner and that this Court may order to release him on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions that this Court may appropriately impose in the interest of justice to protect the integrity and outcome of the trial process.

5. Sri. Saigi Jacob Paletty, learned Prosecutor and Sri. John S. Ralph, learned counsel appearing for the lady defacto complainant has strongly opposed the plea made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail. They would point out that the investigation has clearly disclosed that the petitioner has played a serious fraud on the lady defacto complainant who is a an innocent lady who belongs to one of the weaker sections of the society and that the lady who is unmarried had believed the assurances of the petitioner/accused that he is an unmarried man and that he would marry her and even if it is assumed for arguments sake about the contention of the petitioner regarding the so called consent, then it can be seen that any such consent given on the basis of fraud played by the petitioner accused is a nullity and therefore the petitioner has committed the offence of rape. That it was only later, the lady could know that the petitioner was indeed a married man and that the suppression of the above said crucial factual aspect would clearly show the dishonest intention, fraud and deception played by the petitioner/accused in his relationship with the lady defacto complainant.

6. The learned Prosecutor has also pointed out that the petitioner is involved in quite a few other crimes as well, details of which he has already been pointed out in the order dated 09/08/2019 rendered by this Court in BA No. 5661/2019 filed by the petitioner, whereby his first regular bail application was dismissed by this Court. Further, the learned Prosecutor would point out that though the investigation has been completed, there is serious possibility of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses, more particularly the lady defacto complainant, if he is let out on bail.

7. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that the petitioner has now completed 210 days of incarceration in relation to this case and that the Final Report/Charge Sheet has already been duly filed by the Investigating Agency before the Sessions Court concerned as early as on 26/09/2019.

8. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already suffered long incarceration of about 210 days so far and also the crucial fact that the investigation has now been duly completed in its entirety, this Court feels that a humane view could be taken in this matter, so that the petitioner could be released on regular bail, subject to stringent conditions. This Court has requested the Special Sessions Court concerned to appraise this Court about the present stage of the Sessions case concerned in relation to the instant crime and about the reasonable time that may be required for completion of trial. Now, the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulum has now furnished report as per D. No. 657/2020 dated 21/01/2020, inter alia informing that the case arising out of crime No. 856/2019 of Panangad Police Station has now been numbered as Sessions Case SC No. 950/2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court which is notified to deal with SC/ST (POA Act) cases, Ernakulam and the first posting of the case was on 13/11/2019 and the accused was produced on the day and the case was adjourned on 27/01/2020 for preliminary hearing of charge and that considering the pendency of cases before that Court, all reasonable endeavors is to be taken to ensure the instant Sessions Case to be scheduled immediately after summer vacation as six months time is required for completion of trial.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused would submit on the basis of instructions that the petitioner would fully co-operate with the early conclusion of trial and will not take any steps to unnecessarily prolong the matter.

10. Learned Prosecutor has submitted that all earnest efforts would be taken by the Prosecution agency to ensure that the trial is completed without much delay and preferably within the time line now suggested by the Sessions Court concerned. Further the above said apprehension raised by the prosecution regarding the likelihood of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses cannot be simply brushed aside by this Court and that therefore as a safe guard, it is ordered that the petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the district where the lady defacto complainant is residing or working, until the completion of trial subject to certain exceptions, which will be dealt with hereinafter.

11. Accordingly it is ordered in the interest of justice that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs. 40,000/- and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the competent Court below concerned.

12. However the grant of bail is subject to the following conditions:-

(1) The Petitioner will report before the 10 concerned in relation to this case at any time between 8 am and 2 pm on all 2nd and 4th Saturdays (unless he has to attend the criminal Court concerned on all those days) for the next one year or till the completion of trial, whichever is earlier.

(2) The petitioner will not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

(3) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(4) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever. In that regard, it is ordered that in case if the petitioner commits any non-cognizable offence while on bail, then the 10 may immediately take steps to conduct a summary enquiry on the matter and then may file a report along with the request application before the Jurisdictional Court below concerned seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner, upon which the said Court will consider the said plea and pass necessary orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner accused and the prosecution.

(5) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

(6) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the District where the lady victim is residing until the conclusion of trial process of this case except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Police in relation to this case or any other case or for attending any courts in relation to this case or for contacting his lawyer or for any medical treatment. However in case the petitioner has any genuine and emergent personal need to visit the said area for any temporary purpose, then he may do so, but only after getting the prior permission of the investigating Officer concerned.

(7) The 10 will depute a constable (preferably a woman constable not in uniform) to the residence of the lady defacto complainant once in two weeks for the next 3 to 4 months to ascertain from her as to whether she was subject to any intimidation or influence by the petitioner or his men and if anything so adverse against the petitioner is so brought to the notice of the 10, then he may take immediate steps to ensure that an appropriate report along with request application is filed before the Jurisdictional Court below concerned seeking cancellation of bail, upon which the said Court will stand hereby authorized to consider the said plea and decide thereon after hearing both sides and in accordance with law.

(8) Further, the petitioner shall immediately surrender his passport, if not already surrendered before the Jurisdictional Court below concerned without any further delay, at any rate within seven days of his release and in case if the petitioner does not have any passport, then he shall immediately file an affidavit within the said time limit stating about the said factum.

(9) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.