Dismissed

Akhilesh Sidhardhan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2023CRL.A/260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the high court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail, upholding the special court's finding that offences under the SC/ST POA Act were attracted due to preliminary evidence regarding caste. However, the court held that custodial interrogation is not required.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The appellant is permitted to appear before the investigating officer for questioning and then be produced before the jurisdictional court.

Akhilesh Sidhardhan Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMC 199/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

AKHILESH SIDHARDHAN
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O SIDHARDHAN CHALIL HOUSE, AVOLY, VALLIKKADA,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
SOJAN MICHEAL
DELWIN B.P.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 LAKHSMI SURESH

¶12

D/O SURESH, MALAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, COMPANYPADI, ANICADU,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673

¶13

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

Sri.Renjith George, Sr.PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2023

¶21

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.106 of

¶22

2023 registered at the Muvattupuzha Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 341, 323,354,427 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) (9a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (‘the SC/ST POA Act’ for short).

¶23

2.The crime was registered on the complaint of the 2^nd respondent that, on 16.01.2023, at 1:00 PM, the petitioner had trespassed into her house and outraged her modesty and also caused hurt her by slapping on her cheeks. The 2^nd respondent also alleges that the petitioner had destroyed her mobile phone worth Rs.16,000/-. Although, petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Special Court, that was rejected by Annexure A1 finding that, the allegations and the records indicates that the offences under the SC/ST POA Act are attracted. Hence, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST POA Act would apply.

¶24

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even

¶25

CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2023

¶26

¶27

going by the version of the 2^nd respondent, she was in love with the petitioner. At the instance of the 2^nd respondent that the petitioner had gone to her house on the fateful day. This fact can be proved on perusal of the call data records of the the petitioner’s mobile connection. While the petitioner was in the 2^nd respondent’s house, her parents came back. In order to get over the situation, the petitioner has made up a story that the petitioner had trespassed into her house and had caused hurt to her and outraged her modesty. It is submitted that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

¶28

4.Learned Public Prosecutor made available the First Information Statement of the 2^nd respondent. Therein the 2^nd respondent has stated that she was in love with the petitioner for sometime and later withdrew from the affair, since there was massive change in the petitioner’s character. Even thereafter, the petitioner continued to pester her over phone and on 16.01.2023, he came over to the 2^nd respondent's house, knocked on the door and on opening the door, suddenly entered into her house and caught hold of the 2^nd

¶29

CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

respondent. In the process, her T-shirt came down from her shoulders. The petitioner also slapped on both her cheeks.

¶32

5.The undisputed facts would show that the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent were having an affair for some time. That does not confer the petitioner with any right to trespass into the 2^nd respondent’s house, outrage her modesty, and assault her. The 2^nd respondent being a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste, offences under the SC/ST POA Act may get attracted, if the prosecution is able to prove that the alleged acts were committed with the knowledge that the 2^nd respondent belongs to the Scheduled Caste, as such, at this stage, it cannot be held that there is no prima facie material to attract the offence. Hence, the Special Court was justified in rejecting the application for anticipatory bail.

¶33

Having held so, I find subsistence in the argument that, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner can therefore be permitted to surrender before the investigating officer and in such event, he can be produced before the Magistrate after questioning.

¶34

CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2023

¶35

¶36

In the result, the criminal appeal is disposed of as under;

¶37

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and petitioner is permitted to appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.106/2023 of Muvattupuzha Police Station at 10:30 AM on 07.03.2023. Thereupon, the investigating officer shall question the petitioner and thereafter, produce him before the jurisdictional court on the same day. The petitioner can move an application for bail at that point of time and in such event, the jurisdictional Judge shall consider the bail application and pass orders on the same day.

¶38

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶39

¶40

CRL.A NO. 260 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 260/2023

¶43

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2023 IN CRL.
M.C 199 /2023 OF THE SESSIONS COURT/
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SCHEDULED CASTE &
SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, ERNAKULAM

Akhilesh Sidhardhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Sidhardhan 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

Rahul K Prathapan Vs State of Kerala

Swaraj Vs Jitha Rajendran

Nithin.M Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Nihas C.C. Vs Beena

Dr. Chikku Abraham Vs L. Beena

Sudha K.P. Vs Jaithunnisa R.K.