Muhammed Basheer vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8585 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 4814 OF 2022
                                      1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
         WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                       BAIL APPL. NO. 4814 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 879/2022 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
                       COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE


    (CRIME NO.4814 OF 2022 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE)
PETITIONER/S:

             MUHAMMED BASHEER
             AGED 44 YEARS
             S/O. UTHOTTY, RAROTH HOUSE,
             KOTTUR AMSOM, PALOLI DESOM,
             KOYILANDY TALUK, PIN - 673614
             BY ADVS.
             SANTHARAM.P
             REKHA ARAVIND
             P.G.GOKULNATH


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN
             - 682031
     2       ADDL.R. XXX
             XXXX (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6/7/2022 BY BKT (J))
             BY ADVS.
             V.BINOY RAM
             P.PREMARAJAN


OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI K A NOUSHAD, PP


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 4814 OF 2022
                                            2



                       BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                 ========================
                           B.A.No.4814 of 2022
                 ------------------------------------------------
                           Dated this the 6th day of July, 2022

                                        ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.333/2022 of Balussery

Police Station Kozhikode. The offences alleged against the petitioner

are under Sections 376(2)(n), 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

2. According to the prosecution, in December, 2017

petitioner called the victim to his house under the guise of a

discussion, committed rape on her and thereafter, repeated the act

of rape, after promising to marry her, on several occassions. It is

also alleged that petitioner had appropriated an amount of

Rs.3,54,000/- and two and half sovereigns of gold from the victim

and refused to return the same, thereby committing criminal

breach of trust also.

3. Sri.P.Santharam, learned Counsel for the petitioner

contended that the entire prosecution case is false and that the

circumstances would at the most reveals a consensual relationship.

Even the allegation as regards sexual relationship with promise to

marry, cannot arise, since the petitioner as well as the victim were BAIL APPL. NO. 4814 OF 2022

both married and therefore, the said allegation ought to be ignored.

He further submitted that the allegation of rape alleged to have

occured in 2017 is also false, since the complaint itself is too belated

and the same is put forth only with ulterior purposes and to ruin the

political career of the petitioner.

4. Sri.K.A.Noushad, learned Public Prosecutor, Oppposed the

grant of bail and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary

in the natrure of allegations.

5. Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant on the

other hand contended that the petitioner had exploited the

precarious mental condition of the petitioner while she was going

through a divorce with her husband. Under the guise of discussion,

she was called over to his house and petitioner committed forcible

rape upon her. Thereafter, he continued his sexual relationship with

the petitioner promising to marry her and thereby he has

committed the offences alleged against him.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the defacto

complainant, petitioner is a highly influential politician and

therefore, in the absence of custodial interrogation great

prejudice would be caused.

7. On a perusal of the statement of the victim, I notice

that there is a specific allegation of forcible sexual assault in BAIL APPL. NO. 4814 OF 2022

December 2017 inside the house of the petitioner. Though

subsequently the sexual acts were committed under the promise

of marriage, and even if it is assumed that the said allegation is

not sustainable due to the circumstances of the existing marriage

of the petitioner and the victim, still, since the allegation of rape is

specifically stated in the statement of the victim, I am of the view

that the same requires custodial interrogation.

Accordingly, I find that the petitioner is not entitled for pre-

arrest bail. Hence I dismiss this application.

sd/ BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

jm/ BAIL APPL. NO. 4814 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4814/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2022 IN CRL.M.C NO.879/2022 OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS 15-18 JUDGE, KOZHIKODE