Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 11TH MAGHA, 1941 Bail Appl..No.633 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 384/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATINKARA CRIME NO.1041/2019 OF Vellarada Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/S: VINTO AGED 39 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AMBOORI KOVILVILA VEEDU, KATTAKKADA TALUK, KOVILLOOR DESAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.SASITH SMT.YAMUNA C. RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR, VELLARADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695505. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
================== B.A.No. 633 of 2020 ================== Dated this the 31st day of January, 2020
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in
the instant Crime No.1041/2019 of Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sects. 376, 506(i) and 34 of the IPC. The crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the lady de facto complainant, aged 20 years, on 4.11.2019 at about 4.45 p.m. in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 6.9.2019 at about 6 a.m. in the morning.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the lady de facto
complainant, now aged 20 years, is a married woman having a child and that her mother is a person of loose character, who is separated from her husband and that she was having an immoral relationship with many persons including the petitioner herein, who is a Police Constable of the Kerala Police Force. After the lady victim had delivered her child, she had to stay in her mother’s house for some time and thereupon the petitioner/accused (A-1) used to frequently come there and try to coerce the lady victim for giving sexual favours
B.A.633/20 - : 3 :- which she had resisted. That the lady victim’s mother used to consistently tell her to succumb to the demands for sexual favours made by the petitioner/accused and that it would only help her otherwise. That on 6.9.2019 at about 6 a.m. in the morning, while she was lying in the bed, the petitioner/accused had come there and had forcibly committed sexual intercourse on her. In spite of resistance, she could not do anything and when she resisted, it is none other than her mother, who caught hold her by her hand and facilitated the commission of rape by the petitioner/accused, who is a Police Constable. That out of fear and shame, she did not have the courage to report the incident to the Police, as her mother was actively colluding with the petitioner/accused and as her mother has also pressurized her not to give any complaint to the Police and that such relationship with the petitioner/accused would only helpful in the future. Later, she had gathered courage and reported the matter to the Police on 4.11.2019, which led to the registration of the instant crime.
3. The plea of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail has
been dismissed by this Court as per Anx. A-3 order dated 12.12.2019. Later the petitioner has been arrested on 16.1.2020 in relation to his involvement in the present case and remanded and after his remand, B.A.633/20 - : 4 :- he has been under incarceration since then for the last 15 days.
4. Sri.M.R.Sasith Panicker, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner would urge that the alleged incident is said to have happened on 6.9.2019 and the crime has been registered as late as on 4.11.2019 and there is no reasonable explanation for the long delay of about 58 days in the registration of the crime. Further that there is no medical evidence in this case etc. and that long and unexplained delay would vitiate the entire criminal proceedings. Further that the above said allegations are absolutely false and that the allegations have been made only out of the animosity of the lady victim against the petitioner for being friendly with her mother. Further that the lady has got quarrels with her mother and it is for these reasons that she has made false allegations and that this Court may grant regular bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the
grant of regular bail and has pointed out that this is a case where there is a reasonable explanation for the delay as the lady victim is hardly the aged 20 years and her mother was always colluding with the petitioner/accused and that her mother, who had actually used force to help the petitioner/accused (A-1) to commit the offence of rape and the mother (A-2) was always pressurizing the victim not to
B.A.633/20 - : 5 :- divulge the incidents to anyone and the mother (A-2) was encouraging the victim to maintain the relationship with the petitioner/accused and in these circumstances, any lady victim standing in the shoe of the present lady would have been afraid to report the matter to the Police. Moreover, the crucial fact of the matter is that the petitioner/accused (A-1) is none other than a Police Constable in the Kerala Police Force and any the lady victim would have been afraid to immediately report the incident and that therefore, there is ample explanation for the delay in reporting of the crime. Further that even according to the prosecution case, the lady victim, now aged 20 years, is a married lady and she had given birth to a child and the incident has been reported after 58 days and therefore, the medical evidence by itself may not be very relevant to prove about the incidents of rape, etc. Further that the allegations are very serious and grave and the petitioner is a member of the Police Force and in all likelihood, he would intimidate and influence the witnesses, more particularly the lady victim, if he is let off on bail and that this is a case that this Court may not exercise discretion for grant of regular bail.
6. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not in a position to
B.A.633/20 - : 6 :- now uphold the plea of the petitioner regarding delay and on the other hand, this Court is constrained to concur with the above said submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, at least for the limited purpose of consideration of the regular bail application. The petitioner/accused (A-1) is a Police Constable and there is every likelihood of the petitioner/accused intimidating and influencing the witnesses more particularly, the lady victim, who is hardly aged 20 years, if he is let off on bail. The allegations against the petitioner are
very serious, which need detailed probe. The learned Prosecutor points out that if the petitioner is released on regular bail, it will detrimentally affect the outcome of the investigation process and he has now been in remand hardly for a period of 15 days and
considering the gravity of the offence, this Court may not order
release of the petitioner on regular bail.
7. In the light of the above aspects, this Court is not in a
position to accede to the plea of the petitioner for regular bail. The plea of the petitioner fails and hence, the instant regular bail application will stand dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE