Joy Antony vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17000 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 5166 OF 2021            1




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
     THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 5166 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 636/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                     SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR, THRISSUR
            (CRIME NO.122 OF 2021 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED

             JOY
             AGED 62 YEARS
             S/O.ANTHONY, THANDAPPILLY HOUSE, KORATTY NEAR
             SUBSTATION, KORATTY SOUTH VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 308.
             BY ADV N.L.BITTO


STATE OF KERALA/COMPLAINANT

    1        THE STATE OF KERALA
             REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
             ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
    2        XX
             XX
             BY ADV JITHIN BABU A



             PUSHPALATHA.M.K- SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



     THIS    BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
12.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 5166 OF 2021            2




                                    ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.122 of 2021 of

Koratty Police Station registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 342, 323,294(b), 506(i), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code,

the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner has made an

advertisement to the effect that he requires a home nurse for his family

and on seeing the advertisement the defacto complainant contacted the

petitioner in the number provided in the advertisement. Then the

petitioner asked her to be at his house and when she reached there he

had committed rape on her. On several days from 2 nd week of January

2021 to the 1st week of February 2021, he had committed rape on her

after keeping her in wrongful confinement and thereby the petitioner has

committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a plea of false

implication and pleaded total innocence. According to him the defacto

complainant who was working at his house as a home nurse had

committed theft of gold ornaments and money and left the home. So in

search of the same, he went to her residence on 12.2.2021 and

demanded her to hand over the money and gold ornaments taken by her.

But then he was brutally attacked by her and her men and so he had to

undergo treatment in the Govt. Medical College, Thrissur. In fact he was

attacked by the defacto complainant and thereafter she had preferred this

false complaint raising very serious allegations against him.

4. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed this application and contended that in fact the defacto

complainant was brutally raped by the petitioner on various days from

the 2nd week of February, 2021 till the 1 st week of February. 2021. But she

lodged the complaint against the petitioner on 14.2.2021 before the

Korratty police station. When the case was registered against the

petitioner he managed to obtain the wound certificate from the

Government Hospital and thereafter lodged a complaint before the

Changaramkulam police station on 21.2.2021 alleging that he was

brutally attacked by the defacto complainant and her man and crime was

registered as 61/2021 under Section 342 read with Sec.34 of the IPC.

But, it was revealed that only a minor injury had been sustained by the

petitioner. So, the offence under Section 326 was deleted and as such the

offences are under Sec. 342, 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact the

allegations levelled against the petitioner are very serious in nature and

the investigation of the case is only in the initial stage and if anticipatory

bail is granted to him that will definitely affect the case adversely. With

this contention, this application is opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor.

5. The allegations against the petitioner is grave and serious in

nature as revealed from the FI statement of the defacto complainant. It

appears from the materials collected by the investigating agency that she

has approached the petitioner on seeing the advertisement by him that

he requires a home nurse. When she reached pursuant to the

advertisement he has committed rape on her. Since the allegations

against the petitioner are grave and serious, definitely it has to be

investigated by the investigating agency and for the same it requires

time. If pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, no doubt, that will

definitely affect the investigation of the case.

Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the

petitioner, the present stage of investigation as well the other facts and

circumstances involved in this case especially the registration of the case

at the instance of the petitioner before his complaint, I think that he is

not entitled to get an order of pre-arrest bail as requested by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

Hence, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

smm