Kerala High Court
Sreekumar @ Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1941
BAIL APPL.NO. 3423 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2041/2019 OF DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 20-04-2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1155/2019 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , RAMANKARI DATED 27-03-2019
CRIME NO. 118/2019 OF KAINADY POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SREEKUMAR @ KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O. PAPPU, RESIDING AT EDAUMTHALA HOUSE,
KUNNUMMA VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KAINADY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688506.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3423 of 2019
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.118/2019 of the Kainady Police Station which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.376, 342, 506(i) and 354 of the IPC and Sec. 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. The brief of the prosecution case is that, the accused was known to the lady defacto complainant's husband and that since her husband was seriously ill, they were in real need of money for his treatment and in that regard the accused as a friend of her husband had promised to advance an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the immediate treatment of her husband, and that the accused had requested the lady defacto complainant to come to a shed near a temple in question and when she had reached there, the accused had forcefully raped her and she could not prevent the same and that the accused had video-graphed obscene scenes using mobile phone and the accused had later sent out the lady defacto complainant without giving the money. After the discharge of her husband from hospital, the accused had again B.A. No. 3423 / 2019 ..3..
threatened the lady defacto complainant that she should come to the same place or otherwise he would forward the obscene pictures to her husband and other persons, etc. Later on the second occasion, the accused had slapped her but had not committed sexual intercourse with her. Later he had again threatened her to come to the same place on 6.3.2019 inorder to have sexual intercourse and otherwise he would transmit her obscene pictures to other persons, etc. But she had not gone to that place, and since the accused was likely to continue with the said threats, she immediately approached the police authorities on the next day (7.3.2019) which led to the registration of the crime on the same day for the abovesaid offences.
3. Sri.M.Shaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the allegations are all falsely foisted on him and that even if there is any grain of truth in the same, it could be only due to consensual sexual relationship between the parties, etc.
4. Per contra learned Prosecutor would point out that, it is clear from the investigation that accused and the lady defacto complainant's husband are toddy tappers and they know each B.A. No. 3423 / 2019 ..4..
other, and that since the lady's husband was in urgent need of money for his treatment, they had approached the accused for the said financial help which he offered to her and incidents happened in the abovesaid manner. Further it is pointed out that the investigation has not been completed, and that there is all likelihood that the petitioner influencing the witnesses including the lady defacto complainant if he is enlarged on bail. It appears that the accused has been under judicial custody since 7.3.2019. The investigation has not so far been completed.
5. The apprehension raised by the Prosecution, that the accused is likely to influence and threaten the witnesses, etc cannot be brushed aside. Taking note of the nature of the allegations, as well as the fact that the investigation has not so far been completed, this Court is not inclined to grant Regular Bail at this stage. Accordingly the application will stand dismissed.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG