Allowed

Sudheesh A.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2022Bail Appl./3806/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala allowed the bail application of an accused facing charges of sexual assault and sexual harassment. The court held that since there was no allegation of penetrative sexual assault and the matter of marriage promise falsehood is for trial, custodial interrogation is not required.

What did the court decide?

Bail to the petitioner granted in Crime No.71/2021 subject to conditions including execution of bond of Rs.50,000 and appearance for investigation.

Sudheesh A.P. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 3806 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.71/2021 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTINCT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SUDHEESH A.P. AGED 30 YEARS SON OF VELAYUDHAN, ANGADIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KADUNGAPURAM, ANGADIPURAM VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321

¶9

BY ADV K.RAKESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE&COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673640 3 ADDL.R3 XXX IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 14/7/2021 IN CRL.MA 2/2021. BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI. T.R. RANJITH (SR.PP)

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO.3806 OF 2021

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.71/2021 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram Distinct alleging commission of offences under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), 354 D(1)(I) and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that he entered into a relationship with the de-facto complainant on the false promise of marriage and that he had sexually assaulted the de-facto complainant in several places on the basis of such promise.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant were in a relationship. It is submitted that any relationship between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant was purely consensual and there was element of rape as alleged. It is submitted that even the first information statement and the statement given under Section 164 of the Cr.PC by the de-facto complainant before the learned Magistrate do not suggest that there was any penetrative sexual assault. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Government servant and his arrest and detention will cause serious

¶23

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO.3806 OF 2021

¶25

prejudice to him.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor has taken me through the contents of the first information statement given by the de-facto complainant and has referred to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

¶27

The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail. She submits that the petitioner had behavioured in a most reprehensible manner and that the petitioner was clearly not entitled to anticipatory bail. It is submitted that he had entered into a relationship with the de-facto complainant with a malafide intention of exploiting her and he never had any intention of marrying the de-facto complainant. It is submitted that going by the decided cases, in such an event, even a consensual relationship can amount of rape as consent is obtained by fraud.

¶28

I have considered the contentions raised. The question as to whether the petitioner had extended a promise of marriage and as to whether that promise was false at the inception is a matter to be decided at the trial of the case. There is no allegation of any penetrative sexual assault. I am, therefore, of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. I also take note of the

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO.3806 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

fact that the petitioner is a Government servant and taking a lenient view, he can be granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions.

¶32

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of the arrest in connection with Crime No.71/2021 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram Distinct, subject to the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

¶34

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.71/2021 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram Distinct at 9.00 am on 24.01.2022 and also on 25.01.2022 and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

¶35

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de-facto complainant or to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.71/2021 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram Distinct;

¶36

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime

¶37

¶38

BAIL APPL. NO.3806 OF 2021

¶39

while on bail.

¶40

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.71/2021 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram Distinct may file an application before this Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶43

bng/17.01.22

Sudheesh A.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh A.P. 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

Saidu Mohammed.a., Vs State of Kerala

Dipin Kumar R Vs State of Kerala

Shinu Shaji @ Ambadi Vs State of Kerala

Anshif Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Abijith Vs State of Kerala

Maneesh Vs State of Kerala