Partly allowed

Arundev v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jul 2018CRL.A/846/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal partly, permitting the appellant to surrender for interrogation. While holding custodial interrogation not essential due to reliance on oral testimony, the court directed the appellant to surrender within ten days for production before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to surrender within ten days to be produced before jurisdictional court for urgent bail hearing.

Arundev Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

CRL.A.No. 846 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC 719/2018 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

CRIME NO. 219/2018 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED

¶9

ARUNDEV, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, KOKKALUR P.O, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA.V

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R.AV

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J

¶17

Crl.Appeal No.846 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2018

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of

¶21

his application for anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in Crime No.219/2018 of Balussery Police Station for offences underf sections 451, 511 of 376 of the Indian penal Code and sections 3(1) (w) and 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has approached this court seeking reliefs.

¶22

It was alleged by the prosecution that on

¶23

30.4.2018, at 21 hours, the appellant herein trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, fully knowing that the defacto complainant is a member of a Scheduled caste community, that the appellant herein does not belong to that community, and attempted to commit rape of the defacto complainant. Crime was registered and investigation is progressing.

¶24

Crl.Appeal No.846 of 2018

¶25

¶26

The appellant herein has approached the court below seeking bail. It was declined by the court below, considering the nature of allegations and also holding that bar under section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could apply. This is under challenge in this proceedings.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that even according to her the defacto complainant was not known to him and he used to make calls to her. On the date of incident, on seeing her talking to the appellant herein, the defacto complainant's husband allegedly assaulted her. She sustained several injuries on her body and was taken to the hospital. To escape from further allegations, a false case was set up against him submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was contended.

¶28

It seems that the parties are known to each other. According to the defacto complainant, when the appellant herein tried to hug her, she resisted and

¶29

Crl.Appeal No.846 of 2018

¶30

¶31

fell down. While so, she suffered a Sprain/fracture of the forearm. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the wound certificate, which is available on the case diary, to contend that the defacto complainant had sustained several injuries on her body, which does not tally with her allegations that when the appellant herein tried to hug her, she moved and fell down. It is true that there were several injuries on various parts of her body. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, supports the case of the appellant that the defacto complainant's husband had assaulted her. Having considered these facts, I feel that a custodial interrogation of the appellant herein may not be absolutely essential. This all the most because, the entire allegations against the appellant herein is sought to be established by the oral testimony. Having considered this, I am inclined to permit the appellant herein to surrender before the investigation officer within ten days from today. Thereafter, he

¶32

Crl.Appeal No.846 of 2018

¶33

¶34

shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, who shall take up his application for bail on the same day of his appearance itself, having regard to the fact that the main purpose of surrender was for interrogation and for identification of the accused. The court below shall have due regard to the decision in Shanu Vs.

¶35

State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452) and that of the Supreme Court in Subhash Kashinath Mahajan

¶36

(Dr) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2018(2) KHC 207.

¶37

Accordingly, Appeal is allowed in part.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶40

R.AV

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

PA to Judge

Arundev v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arundev 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarath M.S Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Muhammed Juraij Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Illiyas @ Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Aswin Vs Si of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station

Binoy Mohan Vs the State of Kerala