Dismissed

Dasan @ Yesudasan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Aug 2016Bail Appl./6007/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a bail application filed by the second accused in a rape case. The High Court held that due to the gravity of the offense, the presence of an alleged minor victim, and the necessity for custodial interrogation at the preliminary investigation stage, pre-arrest bail is not a fit case to be granted.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail dismissed.

Dasan @ Yesudasan Vs the State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6007 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.406/2016 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :

¶8

DASAN @ YESUDASAN, S/O.THANSILAS, AGED 27 YEARS, KOTTILKAR HOUSE, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA :

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD, WALAYAR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

P. UBAID, J

B.A.No.6007 of 2016

Dated this the 23^rd day of August, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.406/2016 of the Walayar Police Station, registered under Section 376 IPC. He is the 2^nd accused in the crime.

¶20

The victim of offence in this case is a girl aged 16 years. The prosecution case is that the petitioner herein subjected the victim to sexual intercourse by force at her house, in October, 2015. The girl made complaint only on 19.04.2016. Of course, it is not known, why the two separate instances of rape committed by the two accused are clubbed in one crime, by the police. This will have to seriously thought of, and appropriate directions will have to be given by the learned Public Prosecutor. It appears that the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail on the ground of delay in the complaint. Delay is something that can be explained during trial. That cannot be a reason to claim bail. On a perusal of the materials including the complaint, I find a strong prima facie case

¶21

¶22

B.A.Nos.6007 of 2016

¶23

against the petitioner herein under Section 376 IPC, and under the provision of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It would be unsafe, improper and inappropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused in the above circumstances.

¶24

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that, if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶25

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that some more things remain to be done by the police as part of investigation, and some more witnesses remain to be questioned. I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation in this case, and I find that the accused will influence or intimidate the witnesses, if he is granted prearrest bail. However, if the petitioner so opts, he can surrender before the investigating officer or before the court

¶26

¶27

B.A.Nos.6007 of 2016

¶28

having jurisdiction. After necessary interrogation, the request for regular bail can well be granted regular bail, can well be considered by the learned Magistrate or the learned Special Judge having jurisdiction. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case including the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted.

¶29

In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE

¶31

¶32

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Dasan @ Yesudasan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasan @ Yesudasan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Shivaraman Nair @ K.S.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar @ Unni Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Joy P George Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala