Kishore N vs State Of Kerala

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.23 of 2021 of Peringome Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant is a married woman having a daughter. Her husband is working abroad. Her father is running a chicken stall attached to his residential house. Since the husband of the defacto complainant was working abroad she was residing along with her father. The petitioner/accused used to purchase chicken from her father and thus he got acquaintance with the defacto complainant. He collected her mobile number and thus got close acquaintance with her and thereafter developed a romantic relationship and had taken her to various places with the intention to abuse her sexually. He had even committed rape on her by taking her to various places in his car. He continued to commit the alleged offence from 2017 till 2021. Thereby he committed the aforesaid offence.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he was having acquaintance with the defacto complainant and true that they were having some romantic relationship. But he has not committed the act of rape as alleged by the prosecution. His marriage was proposed to be held in the month of January and when she came to know about the same, she attempted to commit suicide and she was hospitalized for a few days but he has not sexually abused her or committed rape as alleged by the prosecution. Still he apprehends arrest and hence, this application.

The learned Public Prosecutor refuted the claim raised by the petitioner and contended that this petitioner has sexually exploited her and he had even informed the whole details to her husband who is working abroad as well to her father with the intention to spoil her life for ever. He has taken her photographs and exploited the relationship by taking her to various places. So the investigating agency has to probe into the details and custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary to proceed with the case especially when she had attempted to commit suicide, because of the mental trauma suffered by her.

The materials so far collected by the investigating agency appears to be insufficient to proceed with the investigation of the case. Since the investigating agency requires the presence of the petitioner in custody as the gravity of the offence alleged against him is grave and serious in nature, I think that there is no justification in granting pre-arrest bail to him, as requested by the learned counsel though he has married only on 24.1.2021.

Hence, this application stands dismissed. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation of the case.