Kerala High Court
Kunhammad Kallankadi vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A. No.9035/25 1
2025:KER:58977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 9035 OF 2025
CRIME NO.352/2025 OF Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
KUNHAMMAD KALLANKADI
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O KUNHAMMAD KUTTY HAJI
KALLAN KANDI HOUSE,
DEVSRKOVIL, KUTTIADY, THALIYIL P.O
KAYAKKODI VILLAGE, VADAKAA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673508
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY N. BHAT
SRI.RAHUL SUNIL
SMT.SRUTHY K.K
SHRI.SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
SMT.NANDITHA S.
SHRI.K.ARAVIND MENON
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
SRI. PRASANTH M.P., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.9035/25 2
2025:KER:58977
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
B.A. No.9035 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2025
ORDER
This application seeking regular bail is filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 352 of 2025 of Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur registered alleging offences punishable under sections 354A(1)(i), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376C and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused, who is the Professor and Head of the Department of English at Kannur University, had, on 07.03.2024 and 14.03.2024, took advantage of his authority and dominion over the defacto complainant, who is a Ph.D scholar of the same campus under the accused, subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse and also on 08.04.2024 and 05.06.2024 took her to a hotel at Thalassery and again raped her without her consent and thereby committed the offences alleged. Petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2025 and he has been in custody since then.
4. Sri. P Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Adv.Aaron Zacharias Benny, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime with ulterior motives and that the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint itself is an indication of the vexatious nature of the allegations. It was further submitted B.A. No.9035/25 3 2025:KER:58977 that even if the entire allegations are assumed to be correct, still, it only reflects a consensual relationship between two consenting adults and therefore petitioner ought to be released on bail. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that petitioner was, as per Annexure 3, appointed as a co-guide of the defacto complainant only on 20.04.2024 and the alleged rape took place much before and hence there was no supervisory or authoritative position held by the complainant at the time of the alleged incident. Referring to Annexure 4 letter sent by the defacto complainant to the petitioner and Annexure 5 copy of the google meet screen-shot, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that those documents clearly indicate a behaviour which was devoid of any sort of harassment and on the other hand reflects warmth and familiarity. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that petitioner, as a member of a selection committee had not selected the defacto complainant, which resulted in a grudge and on that basis she has foisted a false complaint against him. It was finally submitted that considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, further custody ought not to be permitted and hence the petitioner ought to be released on bail.
5. Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the allegations raised against the petitioner was an instance of sexual exploitation of a student by a teacher using his position and authority. It was submitted that the presumed consensual relationship was by exploiting the authority over the defacto complainant. It was further pointed out that the petitioner was the Head of the Department of English at Kannur University, B.A. No.9035/25 4 2025:KER:58977 while the defacto complainant is a research scholar in the said University and she was coerced into sexual encounters by manipulation and force by exploiting psychologically the command he held over the victim and hence the offence of rape as per the provisions of 376(2)(n) and 376C of IPC are undoubtedly attracted. It was further submitted that, since the petitioner was arrested only on 18.06.2025 and the investigation is still progressing, releasing the petitioner on bail at this juncture would hamper the course of investigation. It was also pointed out that the petitioner is highly influential and though there are similar allegations with others, the victims are not coming forward to lodge complaints fearing a backlash from the petitioner and hence there is every chance that he will influence the witnesses.
6. I have considered the rival submissions.
7. Petitioner is the Head of the Department of English at Kannur University, where the victim is a doctoral student. It is true that the order appointing the petitioner as a co-guide was issued only on 20.04.2024, while three of the instances of alleged rape took place much earlier. Though the contention that till 20-04-2024 petitioner did not hold any position of influence or authority, may seem impressive, on a deeper consideration, it is noticed from Annexure 3 itself that the request for appointing the petitioner as a co- guide was made on 26-02-2024, and it was only the formal orders that were issued on 20-04-2024. Obviously, the consent of the petitioner to act as a co- guide would have been obtained prior to the date of application and without doubt, petitioner would have been elevated to the position of influence and B.A. No.9035/25 5 2025:KER:58977 authority over the victim. As noted earlier, three of the four instances of sexual encounter of the victim with the petitioner was before the application for consent was formally approved and one incident was after the approval.
8. Section 376C IPC deals with instances of sexual intercourse by a person in a position of authority to induce or seduce a woman to have sexual intercourse with him and such intercourse does not amount to the offence of rape. The statutory intention of the said provision is to criminalize abuse of positions of authority or fiduciary capacities wielded by persons in authority over victims, which in turn would have induced the victim to succumb to the sexual demands or advances of the person in authority. The 13th Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 amending section 376C IPC, intended to tap sexual intercourse through manipulative tactics or consent obtained through coercion, by persons in position of influence or authority that would have steered the victim to succumb to his sexual demands or advances. The intention of the Legislature by introducing the said provision was to criminalize instances of sexual abuse committed by persons with whom the victim had a dependency or was in a fiduciary relationship. The amendment of 2013, altered the traditional concept of rape in certain circumstances. A submission to sexual intercourse can also be treated as a sexual offence when the accused was in a position of authority or there was a fiduciary relationship. This legislative intent cannot be ignored by this Court, especially at this stage of investigation.
9. The first incident of rape alleged on 07.03.2024 was within the chamber of the office of the accused and was soon after the request for co- B.A. No.9035/25 6
2025:KER:58977 guideship was submitted. A teacher student relationship had arisen between them. The circumstances do prima facie indicate that the petitioner was certainly in a position of authority over the defacto complainant and he had abused the said position to induce and seduce the victim to have sexual intercourse with him. Further, petitioner is 59 years in age while the victim is only 29 years. From the statement of the victim, the first incident itself prima facie indicates an instance of exerting compulsion and subduing resistance. Considering the position held by the petitioner as the Head of the Department of a University and the victim being a research scholar under the University, the allegations are serious.
10. This Court is wary of the fact that while considering an application for bail, care must be taken not to enter into a meticulous examination of the materials collected or even to comment on the same. However, as observed in Aparna Bhat and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, [AIR 2021 SC 1492] Courts should avoid scrutinizing feminine conduct from a masculine point of view apart from the different forms of bias like myths, stereotyping and generalisation. The stereotyped notions of chastity, resistance to rape, having visible physical injuries, behaving in a certain way, reporting the offence immediately, etc., are all rape myths. Notwithstanding the above, care must be taken to avoid consensual relationships being converted into instances of rape. Thus, each case presents its own factual scenario and therefore certain grounds peculiar to each case can be taken into account.
B.A. No.9035/25 7
2025:KER:58977
11. The investigation is only at its initial stages and the petitioner has been in custody only from 18.06.2025. The influence wielded by the petitioner over the witnesses cannot be shrugged aside as insignificant. Moreover, there are allegations that the petitioner had indulged in such acts against other victims as well and that none of them are coming forward to give evidence due to their fear of the petitioner.
In such circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be released on bail at this juncture, especially when investigation is going on. Hence, I find no merit in this application and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps B.A. No.9035/25 8 2025:KER:58977 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9035/2025 PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02-07-2025 IN CRL.MC NO. 913 OF 2025 OF THE COURT OF THE COURT OF SESSION, THALASSERY COURT Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-07-2025 IN CRL.M.C NO. 913 OF 2025 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THALASSERI Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 20-04-2024 AS CO GUIDE BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGES AND LETTERS SEND Annexure 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE EVENT DATED 23-12-2024 GOOGLE MEET SCREENSHOT Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 23-04-2024 FROM THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT TO THE PROJECT OFFICER OF THE INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR THE SAME BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY Annexure 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE LINKEDIN POST