The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for regular bail filed by the second accused charged with sexual offences and cheating. The Court held that granting bail at this stage was not possible due to the gravity of the offences and the fear that the petitioner would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
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.
B.A.989/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.989 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1298/2020 OF Sreekariyam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAJI @ SHAJILAL AGED 56 YEARS VALYATTUMADAM, ARUVIKKARAKONAM, NJANDOORKONAM, ULIYAZHATHRAI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695587
BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695017
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
PP-C N PRABHAKARAN .
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.02.2021, THE COURT ON 22.02.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.989/2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021
Application for regular bail.
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 511, 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
29.12.2020.
accused was working as an aid to the father of the defacto complainant, who is a lawyer by profession, and
he was residing along with the grandmother of the defacto complainant at her residence. The father of the defacto complainant was laid up. The 1st accused
was helping him and he was even working as a driver.
While so, the 2nd accused, who is functioning as a Poojari in a temple, made her to believe that she had some problem like Gandharvabhadha and to get rid of the
B.A.989/2021
3
same he is ready to conduct certain poojas in the temple. Believing his words, she consented to conduct the pooja. Thereafter, he had sent certain articles as if it is 'prasadam', to her through the 1st accused and at the time of handing over the prasadam, the 1st accused, at the instigation of this petitioner, sexually abused her. He had even attempted to commit rape on her at the instigation of this petitioner and thereby both of them have committed the alleged offences.
petitioner, the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. Of course, the 1st accused has approached him to conduct certain poojas for the defacto complainant as instructed by her father and he has collected the prasadam from the temple and
handed over to the defacto complainant. But the petitioner never instructed the 1st accused to abuse her sexually as alleged by the prosecution. He had never shared any common intention with the 1st accused, but still he is in jail. Hence, this application to release him on bail.
B.A.989/2021
4
the learned Public Prosecutor. It is also submitted that the investigation of the case is only in progress and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, definitely he will tamper with the evidence as he is well connected and is capable of influencing the witnesses to the prosecution.
the nature of the offences alleged against this petitioner as well the 1st accused are very grave and serious. The defacto complainant who is facing so much problems in the family because of the misfortune faced by her father who is a lawyer has instigated this petitioner as well the 1st accused to exploit the present pathetic condition of the family, they together have committed the alleged offences. As there is a strong prima facie case against this petitioner as well
the 1st accused, at this stage it is not possible to
believe that the prosecution version is not true and this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case by someone because of the enmity towards him. As the
investigation is only in the preliminary stage,
B.A.989/2021
5
granting of bail will give an opportunity to the petitioner to influence or terrorize the witnesses using his power and a fair investigation may become difficult. The active role played by this petitioner to commit the alleged offences is prima facie revealed from the CD file. So, at this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, it would tamper the progress of an effective investigation. Hence, I am not inclined to
allow this application.
Dismissed.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V. JUDGE
sb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, the 2nd accused in a rape case IPC 406/376, is entitled to bail at the preliminary stage of investigation due to concerns of tampering with evidence.
Whether the petitioner has met the threshold for bail where a strong prima facie case exists against him.
SHAJI @ SHAJILAL
STATE OF KERALA
STATION HOUSE OFFICER SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION
SHIRCY V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
