Dismissed

Anson O.J. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 May 2016Bail Appl./3958/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application filed by the first accused in a case involving alleged sexual exploitation of a scheduled tribe woman under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court found prima facie evidence of sexual domination and exploitation, holding that release would be inappropriate and unjust.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was dismissed; the petitioner must continue in judicial custody till trial.

Anson O.J. Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3958 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 273/2016 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

ANSON O.J, AGED 30, S/O.JOSEPH, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VACHAKKAL DESAM, EDAVANAKKADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW IN CUSTODY AT CENTRAL PRISON, VIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 010.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

P.UBAID, J.

B.A.No. 3958 of 2016

- - - - Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No. 273 of 2016 of the Kattoor Police Station registered under Sections. 376, 323, 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by him for regular bail was dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Irinjalakuda on 04.05.2016. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 01.04.2016.

¶21

The complaint in this case came on 07.03.2016. The complainant is a scheduled tribe woman aged 28 years. Her origin and roots are in Karnataka. It is alleged that some five years back, while she was working as housemaid, the petitioner herein developed intimacy in her and subjected her to sexual intercourse on many occasions, and gave a false promise that he would marry her. To make her believe that his love was genuine,

¶22

B.A.No. 3958 of 2016

¶23

-2-

¶24

the woman was even taken to his house by the petitioner, and she lived with him for five years there. It is alleged that when the petitioner's mother and other relatives persistently objected to this relationship, the lady was conveniently abandoned by the petitioner, and he married another woman. During this relationship for five years, the woman conceived from the petitioner, and she gave birth to a child. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that everything that transpired between the petitioner and the victim was consensual, and that the man was accepted by the woman as her husband, though not legally married. So the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the offence under Section 376 of IPC cannot be alleged against the petitioner.

¶25

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶26

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary, I find materials to show prima facie that this is in fact a clear case of sexual exploitation of a

¶27

B.A.No. 3958 of 2016

¶28

-3-

¶29

scheduled tribe woman. It appears that by his love made under deceitful means, the petitioner could dominate the will of the lady, and the poor lady believed him and accepted him as her husband. It is here the allegation under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act assumes importance, that as the person accepted by the woman as her husband, the petitioner could dominate her will, and under such domination, he could conveniently exploit the woman sexually for years. In persistent unfavourable circumstances, he just abandoned her, and now he has brought another woman as his legally wedded wife. She is the third accused, and the petitioner's mother is the second accused. They are on bail. But the circumstances of the petitioner are entirely different. A case of sexual exploitation of a scheduled tribe woman is well made out prima facie.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation has gone a long way, and that final report would be submitted soon.

¶31

I feel it inappropriate and unjust to release the petitioner on bail in the particular facts and circumstances stated above. The broader interests of the society demand that he must

¶32

B.A.No. 3958 of 2016

¶33

-4-

¶34

continue in custody till trial of the case is over. This will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking statutory bail, in case the

¶35

Police failed to file the final report in time.

¶36

In the result, this application for bail is dismissed.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Anson O.J. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anson O.J. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kappadan Puthiya Purayil Sujesh Vs State of Kerala

Thaju Vs State of Kerala

Prajwal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Prajith Rich Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs State of Kerala

Binoj Vs State of Kerala