Navas. T.N vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 10136 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
   THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 6883 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 1823/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT &
  SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM [IN CRIME NO.779/2022 OF KALAMASSERY
                       POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM]
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

    1       NAVAS. T.N
            AGED 46 YEARS
            S/O. NOOHUKUNJU,
            THAMARASSERY HOUSE,
            KUNNUMPURAM KARA, EDAPPALLY NORTH
            ERNAKULAM, PIN-682024.

    2       XXX
            ACHU NIVAS
            HMT COLONY P.O
            KALAMASSERY

            BY ADVS.
            C.P.UDAYABHANU
            D.FEROZE
            NAVANEETH.N.NATH
            C.J.JIYAS
            T.S.KRISHNENDU
            PREETI S.
            K.A.ABIDALI


RESPONDENTS:

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

    2       SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION,
            ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034

            BY ADV.M.K PUSHPALATHA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 6883 OF 2022

                                          2


                   BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                 ===========================
                       B.A.No. 6883 of 2022
                 ============================
                  Dated this the 15th day of September, 2022


                                      ORDER

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.779/2022 of

the Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under

Sections 376(2)(n), 354, 354A(l)(ii), 354C, 323, 506(ii) and 384 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 66E of the

Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused, who was

friendly with the victim, committed rape on her, in the month of

March, 2021 and after taking videograph of the act, blackmailed her

into forcible physical relationship till June, 2021 on several

occasions and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Shri.C.P.Udayabhanu, the learned counsel for the BAIL APPL. NO. 6883 OF 2022

petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false

and that the documents produced by the petitioner would clearly

indicate that the relationship if any was, at the most, a consensual

relationship. It was further submitted that an agreement was also

entered into between the petitioner and the victim as early as on

07.07.2021, which is after the date of offence and one of the

conditions in the agreement clearly stipulated that the victim shall

not raise any allegations of physical or mental harassment. It was

further submitted that the reason for entering into such an

agreement was because the victim was caught red-handed for

misappropriating an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only)

which was returned by her. It was further submitted that in any

event, petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be

imposed.

5. Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor

opposed the grant of bail and contended that there are serious

allegations against the petitioner, which require custodial

interrogation and that grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner BAIL APPL. NO. 6883 OF 2022

will prejudice the investigation.

6. Shri.D.Feroz, the learned counsel for the victim submitted

that the case of the petitioner is totally false and that he had

subjected the victim to rape on many occasions after exploiting the

close relationship between them. It was further submitted that the

victim had never been an employee of the petitioner as alleged and

that she herself had license to conduct a homeo retail and wholesale

shop. It was further submitted that petitioner had manipulated the

entire documents including her mobile phone, wherein he had

planted certain bugs/devices to manipulate the messages and also to

extract the videographs and other photos of the petitioner from the

phone.

7. I have considered the rival contentions. The offences

alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature. Even though an

agreement has been allegedly entered into between the petitioner

and the victim in July, 2021, the clauses included therein raises

suspicion in the mind of this Court.

8. Considering the nature of allegations, I am of the view BAIL APPL. NO. 6883 OF 2022

that this is a case where custodial interrogation is necessary. Even

though, petitioner has produced certain WhatsApp messages, it is

not clearly discernible as to whether the messages were those sent

by the victim from her mobile.

9. On a consideration of the entirety of the circumstances, I

am of the view that the custodial interrogation cannot be avoided

and hence petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory

bail.

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE ssa/