Remanded

Balakrishna P. v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC27 Jul 2018CRL.A/864/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a criminal appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail in a rape case under IPC and SC/ST POA Act, directing the appellant to surrender and undergo interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appellant to surrender within 10 days, undergo interrogation and potency test, and be produced before the Sessions Court to consider bail on the same day.

Balakrishna P. Vs the Station House Officer — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

CRL.A.No. 864 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP NO. 1849/2018 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD DATED 25-06-2018 CRIME NO. 241/2018 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED

¶8

BALAKRISHNA P. AGED 45 YEARS, S/O LATE.SHANKARA PATALI, POYYA HOUSE, PADRE VILLAGE, MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶11

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD - 671 121.

¶12

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

R BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.AMBIKA DEVI

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Pn 27/07

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

Crl. Appeal No. 864 of 2018 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2018

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.241/2018 of Badiadka Police Station, Kasaragod for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegation of the de facto complainant is that the appellant had raped her and she delivered a child. He committed rape on her fully knowing that she belongs to SC/ST community and he does not belong to that community. He refused to marry her. Complaint was laid and crime was registered. Apprehending arrest, he moved an application for bail before the court below. The learned Sessions Judge declined the anticipatory bail in the light of the bar under Section SC/ST POA Act. Aggrieved by the above, the appellant has approached this Court.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that essentially the allegation is that the appellant had offered to marry the de facto complainant which was the basis for the consent given by him. According to the appellant, there could not have been any promise to marry and she should not claim a

¶21

¶22

Crl. Appeal No. 864 of 2018

¶23

misconception of facts as directed under Section 90 of the IPC, since even according to the de facto complainant, she was already married and was a mother of two children. It was also contended that the complaint was filed much after the alleged rape.

¶24

Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to direct the appellant to surrender before the court below within 10 days from today. After undergoing interrogation and potency test, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, which shall consider the bail application filed by him preferably on the same day itself.

¶25

Crl. Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶28

/true copy/

¶29

P. A. to Judge

¶30

Pn 27/07