Christhurajan G vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This is an application for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking pre-arrest bail.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1456/2021 of Vizhinjam Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323, 341, 354, 324, 451 and 506 IPC.

The prosecution case in short is that on 19.6.2021 at 2.30 pm., the petitioner criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, wrongfully restrained her, assaulted her and and outraged her modesty and further made an attempt to commit rape on her and thereby committed the offence.

Heard both sides and perused the case records.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR and that a false complaint has been filed against the petitioner as a counter blast to Crime No.1414/2021 registered against the family members of the defacto complainant at the instance of the petitioner. He also submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and he is entitled to get bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

The law with regard to the grant of pre arrest bail is well settled. Pre arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording the reasons thereof. A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. The allegations made against him is very serious in nature and it prima facie show a premeditated criminal act on his part. The alleged incident was taken place at midnight. The FIS would clearly disclose that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and made an attempt to outrage her modesty. The case records would further show that similar complaints were made against the petitioner by others. It is true that there is some delay in lodging the FIR and the crime has been registered after registration of the Crime No.1414/2021. But that itself is not a ground to seek anticipatory bail. The investigation is at the preliminary stage. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is appears to be necessary for the purpose of investigation. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation, I feel this is not a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked.

In the result, this Bail Application is dismissed.