Kerala High Court
Akhil Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 29 August, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 7TH BHADRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.6138 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL MP 4911/2019 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
CRIME NO.747/2019 OF Kuthiathod Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
AKHIL KRISHNAN,AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, AALOOR KUNNEL VEEDU, WARD NO. XI,
KODAMTHURUTH PANCHAYATH, KUTHIATHODE P.O, CHERTHLA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM-682 031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.6138/2019 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No. 6138 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2 in the instant Crime No.747/2019 of Kuthiathode Police Station, Alappuzha, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 377 and 34 of IPC, Sections 66E & 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the lady defacto complainant on 2.7.2019 at 7.30 p.m in respect of the alleged incidents which had happened on 11.11.2018. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 2.7.2019 and has been under judicial custody since then.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the accused No.2, who is infact a man, had created a fake Facebook account with a woman's name and sent messages to the lady defacto complainant, aged 47 years, pretending as if A2 is a woman and in the course of their messaging, A2 requested the lady to transit her nude photographs for decent gratification of A2, who pretended as a woman and he secured such nude obscene photographs of the lady and later, he had given it to A1 and A1, using the said obscene pictures, had threatened the lady that he would divulge it, if she does not succumb to his request for sexual intercourse and that 11.11.2018, A1 had thus forcible sexual intercourse with the lady defacto B.A.No.6138/2019 3 complainant by getting her consent by threat and intimidation that her obscene pictures would be divulged by him etc.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above said allegations raised against the petitioner are false and baseless and that the incident is said to have happened on 11.11.2018 whereas the complaint/FIS was made by the lady defacto complainant only as late as on 2.7.2019 and that delay in this regard is fatal to the prosecution case and would go to the root of the case etc. Further that the petitioner has already suffered detention till 2.7.2019 and that his continued detention is not necessary.
4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant of bail and has pointed out that the above said allegations raised against the petitioner are very serious and grave and that the investigation has not been completed and that given the nature of the conduct of the petitioner (A1), there is strong likelihood of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses, including the lady defacto complainant, if he is let off on bail. Accused No.2, who is close associate of the petitioner (A1) is also now undergoing detention after his arrest and remand.
5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the allegations disclosed in the above prosecution materials are very serious. The investigation has not so far been completed. The apprehension raised by the prosecution regarding the strong likelihood of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses B.A.No.6138/2019 4 more particularly, the lady defacto complainant cannot be safely ruled out by this Court, more particularly, in view of the nature of the conduct of the petitioner as disclosed in the prosecution materials. In the light of these aspects, this Court is not in a position to accede to the plea of the petitioner for grant of regular bail at this stage of the case.
Accordingly, the application fails and the same will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE acd