Mr. X Vs State of Kerala

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.A NO. 99 OF 2023

¶6

APPEAL AGAINST ANNEXURE A3 ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL

¶7

OF CASES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CRMC 2506/2022 IN

¶8

CRIME NO.872/2022 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶10

1 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶11

2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶12

3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY ADVS. ARUN CHAND M.SAKKIR HUSAIN VINAYAK G MENON BHARAT VIJAY P. MAJID MUHAMMED K. MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON THAREEQ ANVER K. K.SALMA JENNATH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARYANAD POLICE STATION, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542

¶16

3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY ADVS.

¶17

M.C. ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V.SETHUNATH V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)(K/001100/1993) OBEID ABDUL MAJEED(K/001951/2022) RAGEEBA SHAHUL(K/2747/2022)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2023, THE

¶19

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.A.NO.99 OF 2023

2

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2023

¶24

The appellants are the accused in Crime No.872 of 2022 of Aryanad police station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The essential facts are as under;

¶25

The de facto complainant, while staying as a paying guest in connection with her studies, got acquainted with the 1^st appellant through social media. Their acquaintance developed into love. When the de facto complainant fell sick, she sought the 1^st appellant’s help for visiting a Doctor. After examining the de facto complainant, she was admitted in a private hospital and was given a single room in the pay ward. That night, the 1^st appellant

¶26

CRL.A.NO.99 OF 2023

¶27

3

¶28

committed rape on her. The de facto complainant was discharged next day morning and went home along with her mother. On recovery, the de facto complainant returned to the paying guest facility. She had to visit the hospital again and this time also, the 1^st appellant accompanied her. While returning from the hospital, the 1^st appellant tried to forcibly take her to a lodge, which the de facto complainant resisted. Seeing this, the public gathered and got the de facto complainant into an autorickshaw. The 1^st appellant also somehow got into the autorickshaw and tried to molest her. Ultimately, the de facto complainant sought refuge in the police station. On being informed about what had transpired, the police summoned the parents of the de facto complainant and 1^st appellant. They came to a settlement, whereby appellants 2 and 3 agreed that the 1^st appellant would marry the de facto complainant. Accordingly the marriage was

¶29

4

¶30

CRL.A.NO.99 OF 2023

¶31

conducted. The de facto complainant alleges that her life was miserable after marriage and she was subjected to frequent physical assault by the 1^st appellant and mental harassment by appellants 2 and 3. This finally resulted in the de facto complainant approaching the police and the crime being registered. Although appellants approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, that application was rejected in view of the prohibition under Section 18 of the Act. Aggrieved, this Criminal Appeal is filed.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the allegation of rape cannot be believed for a moment, since the de facto complainant had voluntarily married the 1^st appellant with the consent of her parents. It is submitted that the allegations with respect to the physical and mental harassment after marriage are

¶33

CRL.A.NO.99 OF 2023

¶34

5

¶35

also false and even if accepted, no offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, is attracted.

¶36

Learned Counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the cruelty meted out against the de facto complainant is sufficient to deter any Court from granting pre-arrest bail to the appellants.

¶37

Learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail, pointing out that a young girl was initially raped and later assaulted and abused.

¶38

On going through the case diary, it is seen that there is prima facie substance in the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor and Counsel for the de facto complainant. In her FI statement, the de facto complainant has categorically narrated the incidents prior to and after marriage. The materials on record prima facie make out the offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Even otherwise,

¶39

CRL.A.NO.99 OF 2023

¶40

6

¶41

the allegation being that the 1^st appellant had committed rape on the de facto complainant, he cannot be granted the luxury of pre-arrest bail. At the same time, there is no reason to refuse prearrest bail to appellants 2 and 3 as they are arrayed as accused by reason of being parents of the 1^st appellant. Of course, allegations as to mental harassment and torture are made against them also. Even then, there is no necessity to subject appellants 2 and 3 to custodial interrogation.

¶42

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The 1^st appellant's prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The appellants 2 and 3 are found entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the following directions are issued;

¶43

(i) Appellants 2 and 3 shall appear before the investigating officer within two weeks. On appearance, they shall be interrogated and in the event of their arrest, released on bail on

¶44

CRL.A.NO.99 OF 2023

¶45

7

¶46

their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each, with two solvent sureties each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶47

(ii) Appellants 2 and 3 shall not leave the

¶48

State without prior intimation to the investigating officer.

¶49

(iii) Appellants 2 and 3 shall surrender their passport to the investigating officer.

¶50

(iii) Appellants 2 and 3 shall not attempt to

¶51

contact the de facto complainant or intimidate her in any manner.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/9-6

CRL.A.NO.99 OF 2023

8

APPENDIX OF CRL.A.99 OF 2023

¶59

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶60

ANNEXURE A1:	THE 06.1 BEFO	TRUE 0.2022 RE THE	COP SUB 2ND	Y OF THE COMPLAINT DATED MITTED BY THE 2ND APPELLANT RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A2:	THE THE DEPA HOSP	TRUE DE-FA RTMENT ITAL,	COPY CTO OF THIR	OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT ISSUED BY THE CARDIOLOGY, JUBILEE MEMORIAL UVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE A3:	THE 2506 THE THIR	ORDER /2022 TRIAL UVANAN	DA PASS OF THAP	TED 22.12.2022 IN CRL MC ED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CASES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT, URAM
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURE:	NIL

¶61

TRUE COPY

¶62

P.A. TO JUDGE

Mr. X v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. X 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

A.M.Gopalan, Managing Director of Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.C.Ashokan

Santhoshkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Sivan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Arif Vs Marjan

M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Drugs Inspector

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala