Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2025
2025:KER:8440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 3959 OF 2024
CRIME NO.74/2024 OF Pazhayannur Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2024 IN CRMC NO.278 OF 2024 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/VICTIM\:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL
ARJUN S.
ARCHANA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 RANDHEER K
AGED 46 YEARS
KODUMUDIPPADY HOUSE, KOTTAYI, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD,
KERALA, PIN - 678572
BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW - R2
ADV.C.N.PRABHAKARAN-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No. 3959 of 2024
..2..
2025:KER:8440
O R D E R
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2025 The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in Crime No.74/2024 of Pazhayannur Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 450, 376 and 376(2)(n) of the Penal Code. Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-A4 Order, as per which, pre-arrest bail was granted to the 2 nd respondent/accused, a Police Officer.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the observations contained in paragraph no.7 of Annexure-A4 Order, which chastised the petitioner as a person having a tendency to attract men to honey trap. Learned counsel would argue that the same is not based on any material on record. Only for the reason Crl.M.C.No. 3959 of 2024 ..3..
2025:KER:8440 that the respondent/accused had furnished the names of the alleged victims of the honey trap, the Sessions Judge harbored a view that there is some element of truth in the allegation that those persons are victims of honey trap laid by the petitioner/defacto complainant. On such premise, the learned Sessions Judge has gone to the extent of holding against the credibility of the allegations made by the defacto complainant, while choosing to grant pre-arrest bail to the 2nd respondent herein. Learned counsel then invited the attention of this Court to paragraph no.9 of Annexure-A4, wherein there is a clear and categorical observation by the learned Sessions Judge that an element of consensual sex is explicit in the given facts. According to the learned counsel, both these observations are likely to prejudice the interests of the petitioner/defacto complainant in the trial. That apart, learned counsel also canvassed that Annexure-A4 Order, which granted pre-arrest bail to the 2nd respondent, is not supported by any valid ground/reason. The same was granted, ignoring the objection of the Public Prosecutor to the Crl.M.C.No. 3959 of 2024 ..4..
2025:KER:8440 effect that the 2nd respondent/accused, being a member of the police force, will influence the witnesses and interfere with the investigation. According to the learned counsel, Annexure-A4 Order, as a whole, is liable to be set aside.
4. The above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was fully supported by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor would reiterate that the 2nd respondent is a police officer and that the possibility of interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that only based on a submission made by the petitioner as regards the names of certain victims, the trial court, quite erroneously, arrived at a conclusion that the credibility of the allegations made by the defacto complainant is under a cloud.
5. Per contra, the above submissions were seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the 2nd Crl.M.C.No. 3959 of 2024 ..5..
2025:KER:8440 respondent/accused. According to the learned counsel, pre-arrest bail was granted taking into account the relevant considerations. Learned counsel would also submit that Annexure-A3 chats would make it clear that the petitioner is a person who experiments honey traps, so as to victimize innocent persons. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the F.I.S., to contend that a perusal of the same would amplify the consensual nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the accused/2nd respondent. Thus, according to the learned counsel, there is no room for any interference, whatsoever, to Annexure-A4 Order. At best, the observations against the petitioner/defacto complainant can be expunged, is the submission made.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds that Annexure-A4 Order cannot be sustained. Primarily, this Court finds that it is beyond the powers and propriety of the learned Sessions Judge to arrive at a finding in paragraph no.7 that the Crl.M.C.No. 3959 of 2024 ..6..
2025:KER:8440 credibility of the allegations made by the defacto complainant is under a cloud. That part of the order, which speaks about an element of truth on the allegation that the petitioner has a tendency to attract men to honey trap, is also improper and illegal. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the petitioner, there was no material before the trial court to arrive at such a conclusion. At any rate, no such material is referred to in Annexure-A4 Order to find that the petitioner is a person who attracts men to honey traps arranged by her. Secondly, this Court finds that the finding contained in paragraph no.9 that an element of consensual sex is explicit in the given facts is also completely beyond the propriety and authority of the learned Sessions Judge. It is cardinal that, while disposing bail applications, the court shall not comment on the ultimate merits of the matter, which will prejudice one among the parties before the trial court. Therefore, a finding to the effect that there is an element of consensual sex, as explicit from the facts, is completely Crl.M.C.No. 3959 of 2024 ..7..
2025:KER:8440 unwarranted and illegal. That apart, the question as to whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required or not is not seen considered in Annexure-A4 Order. Rather, the finding in paragraph no.9 is to the effect that considering the nature of the offence and investigation to be completed, custodial interrogation and the presence of the petitioner is found to be inevitable. If that be so, the grant of pre-arrest bail does not stand to reason.
7. In the circumstances, this Court finds no tangible reasons supporting the grant of pre-arrest bail. Annexure-A4 Order will therefore stand set aside. There will be a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to reconsider the matter afresh, after hearing all the parties. Here, this Court cautions that the observations made against the defacto complainant were in her absence, which makes the findings all the more illegal. I, therefore, direct the learned Sessions Judge to consider and pass orders afresh in Crl.M.C.No.278/2024, after taking Crl.M.C.No. 3959 of 2024 ..8..
2025:KER:8440 into account all the contentions of the petitioner/defacto complainant, the 2nd respondent/accused and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not made any opinion as regards the merits of the matter. This Court only finds that the reasons stated in Annexure-A4 Order is not sufficient to grant a pre-arrest bail. If there exists sufficient reason for the grant of pre-arrest bail, this Order will not stand in the way of learned Sessions Judge in doing so. Until the matter is re-heard and disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, there shall be an interim order not to arrest the petitioner.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE TR Crl.M.C.No. 3959 of 2024 ..9..
2025:KER:8440 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3959/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & FIS IN CRIME 74/2024 OF THE PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION DATED 09.02.2024 Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION DATED 15.02.2024 Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS LIST DATED 15.02.2024 Annexure A4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C NO 278/2024 OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR DATED 02.04.2024 Annexure A5 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR & FIS IN CRIME 303/2024 OF THE OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION DATED 06.03.2024