Rajesh vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This appeal arises out of order in Crl.M.P.No.1984/2022 dated 22.08.2022 on the file of the Special Court for the trial of SC ST(POA), Thiruvananthapuram in Crime No.426/2022 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

Respondent is the State of Kerala.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

Though notice was served to the defacto complainant through the Investigating Officer, as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for convenience], the defacto complainant did not turn up for hearing.

The prosecution allegation is that the accused promised to marry the defacto complainant and on the said promise, the accused committed rape against the defacto complainant on various dates and also misappropriated Rs.25 lakh of her, by cheating her. Repeated instances of rape starting from 28.06.2021 at Al-Saj Hotel and at a hotel in Perumathura on 16.01.2022 were narrated in the F.I statement given by the defacto complaInant. In the above circumstances, the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Section 376(2)(n) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the `Act'.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the allegations against the appellant are absolutely false. The appellant as well as the defacto complainant are married persons and, therefore, the promise of marriage, as alleged by the defacto complainant, doesn't arise in this case. He admitted that there were financial transactions between the appellant and the defacto complainant, who maintained a healthy relationship. Now the defacto complainant wants to squeeze money from the appellant and accordingly a false case was registered alleging offences under Section 376(2)(n) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted further that the accused was taken into custody on 29.07.2022 and has been in custody till now. It is submitted further that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and his presence in custody for the purpose of investigation is practically over and, therefore, he shall be released on bail. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted further that the accused is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court as a pre-requisite for granting bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed interference in the order impugned and to grant bail to the appellant. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that prima facie the allegations are well made out and the investigation is on the mid way. Therefore, the appellant, who alleged to have committed very serious offences, shall not be released at this stage, as the same would hamper the investigation.

I have perused the relevant materials forming part of the case diary, produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. On perusal of copy of F.I statement given by the defacto complainant, a healthy relationship with accused is alleged and also misappropriation of Rs.25 lakh by the appellant is alleged. Apart from that, repeated rape on the promise of marriage also are alleged. As such, there is no reason to believe that there is no prima facie case made out. Therefore, the investigation shall go on and effective investigation is the need of the hour. However, it appears that, presence of the appellant in custody, for the purpose of investigation, is practically over in a case where the appellant has no criminal antecedents. Since he has been in custody from 29.07.2022, his further custody is not necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation. In view of the matter, the appellant/accused is entitled to get regular bail.

Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the appellant/accused is granted bail on the following conditions:

i. The appellant/accused shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court concerned.

ii. The appellant/accused shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial.

iii. The appellant/accused shall not cause any hindrance to the defacto complainant and also not disturb her in any manner. Any such event, if reported or came to the knowledge of this Court, the same is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. He shall co-operate with trial and shall be available for trial.

iv. The appellant/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial court/jurisdictional court.

v. The appellant/accused shall surrender his passport, if any, within 7 days from the date of his release, before the jurisdictional court. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit in this regard on the date of execution of the bond or within 3 days thereafter.

vi. The  appellant/accused  shall  not  involve  in  any  other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.