Kerala High Court
Rajesh vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2016
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 8846 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1034/2016 OF AIROOR POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT
--------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
---------------------
RAJESH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MANI,
EDAVILA VENKULAM DESOM, EDAVA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND THE COMPLAINANT :
---------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
AYIROOR POLICE STATION, AYIROOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695310
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
bp
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
B.A No.8846 of 2016
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 16th December , 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1034 of 2016 of the Ayiroor Police Station registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes &Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is the petitioner's second application for bail. His first application was dismissed by this Court on 30.11.2016 The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.10.2016.
2. This is a case where a superstitious lady was trapped for sexual abuse by a 'Poojari' at the premises of a temple making her believe that it was absolutely necessary for the eradication of the evils surrounding her. The poor lady fell in the trap and happened to submit herself to him, in April, 2016. When she realised that she has in fact being exploited sexually by the 'Poojari', she made a complaint alleging rape on 11.10.2016. On a perusal of the materials including the statements given by the victim under Section B.A No.8846 of 2016 2 164 Cr.P.C. I find that there are clear prima facie materials for a prosecution on the given allegation of sexual exploitation. The victim in this case belongs to Scheduled Caste. Whether this is a case of exploitation of a member of Scheduled Caste, is a matter for decision on trial. However, there are materials to substantiate the allegation of rape in this case.
3. This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the investigation.
4. I do not find any material change in circumstances since the dismissal of the first application. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the Investigating Officer, I find that the petitioner cannot be now released on bail. Some more important witnesses remain to be questioned by the Investigating Officer, and some more materials remain to be collected as part of investigation. This process will be obstructed if the petitioner is now B.A No.8846 of 2016 3 released. I find that effective investigation is in progress, and that the accused will obstruct investigation if he is now released on bail. I find prima facie materials substantiating the allegations against the accused. The request for bail will be considered at a later stage when major part of investigation is over.
In the result, this application for bail is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.S to Judge