Kerala High Court
Shajimon R vs State Of Kerala on 20 January, 2014
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/30TH POUSHA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 346 of 2014 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO. 695/2012 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT
------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------------
SHAJIMON R.,S/O.RAJAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
PUTHELAZHIKATHU THEKKATHIL,
EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.BINDU GEORGE
RESPONDENT :
--------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE S.I.F OF POLICE,
EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 346 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2014.
ORDER
A very strange set of facts appear in this application for anticipatory bail.
2. The husband of the victim filed a private complainant accusing that the petitioner and two others committed rape on his wife on 31.7.2011. The private complaint so filed is dated 23.7.2012. Initially, the wife, who was questioned, denied occurrence of any such incident and maintained that she was taken to the hospital and she was in the hospital since she had vomited and became weak.
3. Long after that, on 20.7.2013 it is seen that statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, was taken in which she gave a totally different story. She came forward with a case that allegation of rape made in the earlier private complaint is true. Petitioner now stands arrayed as first accused for the B.A.346/2014. 2 offences under Sections 359, 363, 375, 376 and 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that it can be very easily seen that the story of rape is a cooked up one with ulterior motive. The victim at no point of time earlier to 20.7.2013 had a case that she had been ravished by the petitioner and his friends. It is also significant to notice, according to the learned counsel, that the couple were living apart due to difference of opinion and the defacto complainant has been making all efforts to get back his wife. Learned counsel would point that Section 164 statement has been taken long after the incident and especially long after the private complaint is a clear indication that the allegations are made with ulterior motive. He therefore seeks pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor only submits that investigation is at an infant stage.
B.A.346/2014. 3
6. The allegations indeed are serious and grave. But the question is whether it can be taken on the very face value. The defacto complainant, who is the husband of the victim, had fallen in love with the victim and they had a child at the relevant time. One version is that the victim was asked to collect certain photographs from the petitioner and others and she went to do so. When she reached the place,she was taken in a car and made to drink something and later she became unconscious , then the petitioner and others alleged to have committed rape on her. However, soon after the filing of the private complaint by her husband, she was questioned by the police and at that time she had no case that she had been ravished. A subsequent statement was also taken in which also she maintained the same stand. It was much later when Section 164 statement was taken, she came forward with a story of rape supporting the averments in the complaint filed by her husband.
B.A.346/2014. 4
7. It is significant to notice that even in the private complaint as now records stand, she was found admitted in Victoria Hospital on the next day of her disappearance. However, in her Section 164 statement there is no mention as to how she landed up there.
8. The allegations look suspicious and it may not be proper for this Court to enter a finding regarding the veracity of the allegations at this point of time. Considering the manner in which the case has been set up, the inconsistent stand taken by the victim and the long delay in lodging the complaint etc., it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 27.01.2014, who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the court B.A.346/2014. 5 concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.
ii) The court concerned may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond.
iii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. until further orders.
B.A.346/2014. 6
iv) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.
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 in law.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.