Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMP 2278/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUNNAMKULAM PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: MONISH AGED 34 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN, RUBBER VILLA HOUSE, VALAKKODU P.O, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691331 BY ADVS. R.SURAJ KUMAR ANJANA R.S. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.NOUSHAD K.A - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=========================== B.A.No. 7010 of 2022 ============================ Dated this the 14th day of October, 2022
ORDER
This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.274/2010, of the Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur, alleging offences punishable under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused had committed
rape upon the victim from 20.08.2008 to 21.08.2010 on the promise of marriage and accused 2 to 5 had, on coming to know about the sexual relationship between the victim and the 1st accused, forced her to indulge in sexual intercourse with them and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Shri.Suraj Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that
the petitioner is totally innocent. It was also submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 22.08.2022 and has been in custody since then. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner was totally unaware about the crime for the last 12 years and he was always available in his locality and that he had never absconded. It was further pointed out that as far as the case against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned, the Sessions Court had, after due trial, acquitted them in S.C.No.487/2013 and therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted in the circumstances.
5. Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor,
opposed the grant of bail and contended that for the last 12 years, the investigation team was trying to trace the whereabouts of the petitioner and that it was only on 22.08.2022 that petitioner could be nabbed. For the last 12 years, petitioner had been absconding and therefore, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance that he may abscond.
6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also
perused the case diary. Having regard to the absence of the petitioner from 2010 till 2022, I am of the view that legally, it can only be assumed that the petitioner was absconding. I am fortified in the above conclusion, since non bailable warrants were repeatedly issued without success.
7. Considering the fact that petitioner was evading arrest for the last 12 years, I am of the view that the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner would abscond again, cannot be ignored.
8. Accordingly, I am not inclined to allow this application and the same is dismissed. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE ssa/