Kerala High Court
Sathyan vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2017
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY,THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2017/13TH ASHADHA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 4538 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 794/2017 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION , TRISSUR
------------------
PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
SATHYAN
S/O.MURUKAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PANANKAVIL HOUSE,
KANNATHUPEEDIKA DESOM, KUTTUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTING INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S. SAJJU
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
B. A. No. 4538 of 2017
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 794/2017 of Viyyur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(I), 324 and 506(i) of the IPC.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that, sometime in April 2015, the 1st accused committed rape of a mentally challenged woman aged about 40 years. It was allegedly seen by the wife of the 1st accused who is the 2nd accused who had hit her with a broom. Complaint was laid almost 2 years thereafter. The petitioner was arrested on 31.05.2017 and is in custody.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, he is sought to be falsely implicated on an allegation of false rape. It was also stated that, delay of 2 years has not been substantially explained and even the explanation offered is unbelievable. It was stated that, during the initial period of one year, she was lodged along with certain nuns and thereafter when she returned, she was threatened by the 2nd accused, which continued till the complaint was laid. B. A. No. 4538 of 2017 2
4. The allegation against the petitioner seems to be serious. He is a married person with family. Having regard to the nature of allegations and that the incident relates to the involvement of a mentally challenged victim, I feel that it is not fit for granting bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Bail application fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.
/true copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn