In a bail application alleging rape and atrocities under the SC/ST Act, the court held that Section 18 of the Act precludes the High Court from exercising pre-arrest bail powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. owing to the grave nature of the allegations and the infant stage of investigation, dismissing the plea.
Pre-arrest bail application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/20TH PHALGUNA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 1585 of 2013 ()
CRIME NO. 238/2013 OF KASABA POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MANOJ, AGED 35 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, UDUVAKKAD, PALLATHERY PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALAKKAD CASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
Bail Application No.1585 OF 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of March, 2013.
O R D E R
The petitioner is accused in Crime No.238/2013 of Palakkad Casaba Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. The complaint was laid on 09.02.2013 by the de facto complainant pointing out that she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused on a particular day and on another day while she was taking bath he tried to molest her.
B.A No.1585/2013
2
that the allegations are totally false. Even assuming that the allegations are true, there is clearly a case of consensual sex which has been converted to rape on being detected by the mother. The petitioner also points out that the victim is aged 23 years and it is also brought to the notice of this Court that soon after the incident, even going through the complaint, she had gone for work. If the allegations are true, it would be a a traumatic circumstance and she would not have gone for work. Apart from that, according to the petitioner, the story put forward by the de facto complainant is also unbelievable and there is considerable delay in lodging the First Information Statement also.
B.A No.1585/2013
3
says that offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. At any rate, the investigation is going on. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that pre-arrest bail may not be granted to the petitioner.
B.A No.1585/2013
4
cannot be accepted. It is true that the victim was not aware of the fact that the petitioner is married. But the contention that if at all any act has been taken place, it is with the consent of the victim is too premature. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations does not arise for consideration at this point of time.
Considering the nature of the allegations, the manner in which the offence was committed and the gravity and seriousness of the offence and also the fact that the investigation is at an infant stage, this Court is precluded from exercising its power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The application for pre-arrest bail is only to be dismissed and I do so.
The application for bail is dismissed.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
smp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 376 IPC when Section 18 of the Act precludes the High Court from exercising Sect
Whether the claim of innocence and timely information regarding the nature of the offence is sufficient to exercise pre-arrest bail jurisdiction given the gravity of the charges.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Manoj
State of Kerala
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
