Kerala High Court
Muhammed Siddique U.P vs The State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2013
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 8405 of 2013 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 937/2013 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-:
--------------------
MUHAMMED SIDDIQUE U.P., AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMEDALI T., RESIDING AT AYITTI HOUSE,
NEAR JUMA MASJID, NORTH THRIKARIPUR VILLAGE
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
RESPONDENT/STATE:-:
------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BP
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 8405 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2013
O R D E R
This is a typical instance where a married woman has sex with a man and after divorce, when the man refuses to marry her, the sexual intercourse which they had initially is labelled as rape.
2. The petitioner stands accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
3. As per the allegations, while the marriage of the victim was subsisting, the relationship between the victim and her husband became bitter and they led an estranged life. During that period, the petitioner is said to have gained acquaintance with the victim and on the offer of promise, she was compelled to have sex with him. The first of such incident is alleged to have taken place on 23.08.2012. Thereafter, there were frequent physical relationships. It was alleged that later, the husband pronounced Thalak and B.A. No.8405/2013 -2- when the victim insisted the petitioner should marry her, he refused to do so and hence the complaint.
4. The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and he is innocent. According to him, even assuming all the allegations are true, it is a case where the physical relationship, if any, was with the full consent and willingness of the victim. Conveniently, it was converted to one of rape to falsely implicate the petitioner. The petitioner also pointed out that he has been in custody from 05.12.2013 onwards and his continued custody is unnecessary.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that it was making the victim believe that the petitioner would marry her that he had forced her to have sex. It is also pointed out that the investigation is going on.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having B.A. No.8405/2013 -3- perused the records, though it may not be possible at this stage to say that the petitioner is totally innocent, there is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first of the incident is said to have taken place in a lodge. There is no allegation as such that she was forcibly taken to the lodge or to the hotel. The only allegation is that she was made to believe that the petitioner would marry her. It must be noticed that at that point of time, her earlier marriage was subsisting. Further, a reading of the complaint produced along with the petition would show that there have been frequent physical relationship between the parties. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a consensual act has been converted to one of rape to suit the convenience of the complainant is devoid of any merit.
Whatever that be, a deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. Suffice B.A. No.8405/2013 -4- to say that a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now, his continued custody appears to be unnecessary.
The petition is allowed as follows:
i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of ` 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
ii) The court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders.
iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.
B.A. No.8405/2013 -5-
v) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.