Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs on 11 April, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No. 2485 of 2019
CRIME NO. 213/2019 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
SUDHEESH,
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.SURESH(LATE) SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, KUNUMPURAM,
THENKARA(PO), MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SRI.N.MADHUSOODHANAN, ADVOCATE
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI-31.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2485 of 2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
B.A.No.2485 of 2019
===========================
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.213/2019 of Mannarkkad Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.354C, 450, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Secs.67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. The brief of the prosecution allegation is to the fact that the petitioner/accused and the lady de facto complainant were lovers and having a love affair and that on 10.10.2018, at about 11 a.m., the petitioner/accused has trespassed into her rented house, where she and her family members are residing and thereafter, he had committed forceful sexual intercourse on her and he had taken photographs of the said act in mobile and had blackmailed her and that on 16.10.2018 at about 2 p.m., he had forcefully subjected her for sexual intercourse. The lady de facto complainant had married another person in January, 2019 and thereafter the accused had sent the abovesaid photographs to her husband's mobile phone and thereby has cruelly tarnished and that thereby committed the abovesaid offences. The petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2019 and he has B.A.No.2485 of 2019 3 been under judicial custody since then,
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the abovesaid incidents would have occurred only on account of the consent of the parties. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the incidents on 10.10.2018 and 16.10.2018 had happened at the time when she was already engaged and her marriage was later conducted in January, 2019, etc. and further that the investigation has not been completed and it is only after due and comprehensive completion of the investigation, can the abovesaid aspects urged by the petitioner regarding consent, etc., would be ascertained and at this stage, it may not be proper for this Court to act upon the unilateral and self-serving allegations of the petitioner accused and that the investigation has not so far been completed, the petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses, etc.
4. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that the allegations raised in the above crime are serious and grave and that it may not be right and proper for this Court and it is only in the interest of justice that the investigation is finalised, so as to ferret out the truth in the matter and since the investigation has not so far been completed, it may not be proper to brush aside the apprehension of prosecution that the petitioner is likely to influence the witnesses, etc. B.A.No.2485 of 2019 4 Accordingly, it is ordered that the above Bail Application will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd