Titto S vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 16335 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
                          CRL.A NO. 513 OF 2021
  CRIME NO.124/2021 OF Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL MC 589/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
                       COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


APPELLANT/PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

            TITTO S
            AGED 29 YEARS,
            SELVARN T.,
            TC 41/17, CHANDRA NIVAS,
            MANACAUD P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

            BY ADV
            LATHEESH SEBASTIAN(K/1617/1999)-16841


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDNETS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031

    2       ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF POLICE,
            CANTONMENT POLICE STATION,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

    3       STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033

    4       XXX XXX XXX
            VICTIM


     THIS   CRIMINAL   APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Appl.No.513 OF 2021
                                     2

                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 04th day of August, 2021

This criminal appeal is against the order rejecting

anticipatory bail on account of the bar under Section 18 and 18

A of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegation is that the accused to

satisfy his lust, under the guise of a promise to marry the

victim, subjected to rape on several occasions and as such,

crime was registered for the offence under Section 376 IPC r/w

Sections 3(1)(r),(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. Prima facie, it appears that the bar

under the special enactment would come into play, since there

is sufficient allegation to attract the offence under the said

special enactment. The gravity of the offence would also

disentitle the grant of anticipatory bail. It is not a proper case

in which even regular bail can be extended, unless there is

warranting reasons. The victim is a lady belonged to scheduled

caste and the affair with the accused was maintained. Even for

a long period of 2 ½ years. Hence, the appeal fails, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE VPK Crl.Appl.No.513 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.124/2021 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION