VICTIM Vs. SHYJAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.33 of 2020 of Elathoor Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 450, 511 of 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC ). Respondents 1 and 2 are the accused in the said case.

(2.) The accusation in the case is that on 30.10.2019, at about 11.00 a.m, the accused have attempted to commit rape on the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 preferred Bail Application No.1197 of 2020 seeking anticipatory bail in the case, and in terms of Annexure 1 order dated 05.03.2020, this court granted anticipatory bail to them, subject to the conditions, viz, that they shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and that they shall not involve in any other offence while on bail. This case is instituted invoking Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for cancellation of the bail granted to respondents 1 and 2 in terms of Annexure 1 order. It is alleged by the petitioner that a You Tube channel viz, 'Big Breaking Kerala' has uploaded, after Annexure 1 order, the video of an interview given by respondents 1 and 2 titled respondents 1 and 2 have pretended in the said video that the case against them is a false one instituted by the petitioner to extort money from them; that respondents 1 and 2 have mentioned the name of the petitioner who is the victim of the crime in the course of the interview given by them to the channel and that, at the instance of respondents 1 and 2, the channel has shown the photograph of the petitioner also in the video uploaded. It is stated by the petitioner that on a complaint preferred by her, Elathoor police has registered Crime No.136 of 2020 under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 500 of the IPC against respondents 1 and 2, their lawyer who participated in the interview, and the reporter of the channel in respect of the aforesaid video. According to the petitioner, the conduct of respondents 1 and 2 in giving interview to a media characterizing the petitioner as a fraudster, disclosing the name of the petitioner and publishing the photograph of the petitioner, would amount to misuse of the freedom granted in terms of the order in Bail Application No.1197 of 2020, and breach of the conditions therein.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance in the matter and filed a detailed affidavit. In the affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 have not disputed the fact that they have given the interview referred to by the petitioner, though they pretended that they do not know whether the video has been uploaded by the channel. Similarly, they have also not disputed the contents of the video. The relevant portions of the affidavit filed by the first respondent, on his behalf and also on behalf of the second respondent, read thus: