Kerala High Court
Rajeena K vs State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2020
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.1860 OF 2020
CRIME NO.53/2020 OF Feroke Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
RAJEENA K.
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O. RASHEED, PURAKKATTAKATH HOUSE,P.O.
KARUVANTHURUTHI, PULLUNNIPADAM,
KOZHIKOE DISTRICT 673 631.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHARAM.P
SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
SRI.PAUL P. ABRAHAM
SRI.P.G.GOKULNATH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI T.R RENJITH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.1860 OF 2020 2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. This application is taken up and heard through Videoconferencing.
3. The petitioner herein is the 3 rd accused in Crime No. 53 of 2020 of Feroke Police Station registered under Sections 370, 376, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1), 4(2)(a)(b)(c),3(2)(b), 5(1)(a)(b)(c), 6(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
4. The above crime was registered based on information furnished by a lady, who is a resident of Bangalore. While she was working in a textile shop, she got acquainted with the 1 st accused, Shihab, through facebook and they fell in love. In course of time, they decided to marry. However, the sister of the victim was opposed to the relationship. While so, as requested by Shihab, the couple along with one Moideen travelled to Kerala. They stayed in the house of the petitioner for a brief period. Shihab is alleged to have subjected her to sexual intercourse during their stay. After staying in the house of the petitioner for a few days, the petitioner is alleged to have taken her to a house at Kuravanthuruthi. She was allegedly told by the petitioner that she was brought to Kerala for indulging in prostitution. She was Bail Appl..No.1860 OF 2020 3 wrongfully confined and it is alleged that the petitioner introduced the victim to strangers and she was asked to accede to their prurient pleasures. However, she refused. She made a hue and cry when the petitioner persisted which attracted the neighbours. The neighbours alerted the police and the instant crime was registered.
5. Sri. Santharam.P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the 1st accused had worked as a driver of the petitioner for some time. The victim was introduced to the petitioner as his lover. The petitioner is a married woman and her husband is working overseas. During September, 2019, while the petitioner was shifting her residence to her new home, the 1st accused brought the victim to her home for assisting her. It is contended that the allegation of rape is against the 1 st accused. Though it is alleged that the petitioner persuaded the de facto complainant to sell her body to strangers, there are no materials to substantiate the said fact. The learned counsel would also refer to the initial statement of the victim and it is argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are extremely vague. The learned counsel would also refer to Annexure-3 lease deed and it is argued that the allegation levelled by the victim that she was taken to a house at Feroke is clearly false in view of Annexure-A3 lease deed, which would show that the said house is occupied by one Hamsa.
Bail Appl..No.1860 OF 2020 4
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the victim has given an additional statement clarifying her earlier version. The learned Public Prosecutor has also made available the copy of the 164 statement of the victim and it is argued that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.
8. From the statement it appears that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that she had persuaded the victim to indulge in prostitution. It is borne out from the statement of the victim that she was in love with Shihab and that she had travelled to Kerala believing his statement that he would marry her. It does not appear from the records that any other person other than Shihab had occasion to violate her. Though it is alleged that the petitioner is running a brothel house, no materials have been placed before this Court to substantiate the said fact. As a matter of fact, a Crime was registered on 28.1.2020 and one would expect the prosecution to come forward with some materials to substantiate the said allegation.
9. The petitioner is a lady and a married woman. It is not reported that the petitioner is involved in any other crimes. There is no case for the Bail Appl..No.1860 OF 2020 5 investigating officer that the petitioner would make herself scarce or that it would be difficult to secure her presence either at the stage of investigation or at the stage of trial. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and investigation and it shall also be ensured that harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused is avoided. having considered all the relevant facts, I am of the view that stringent conditions can be imposed to ensure that the petitioner does not manage to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses. Having regard to the nature of accusations, the role assigned to the petitioner and attendant facts, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.
In the result, this application will stand allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.Bail Appl..No.1860 OF 2020 6
ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE ps