Kerala High Court
Mohammed Harees vs State Of Kerala on 21 December, 2023
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 11207 OF 2023
CRIME NO.159/2022 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT Bail Appl. 1862/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED HAREES
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O ABDUL MAJEED, HANA VILLA, SEA VIEW WAD, BAZAR P.O,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012
BY ADVS.
R.SANJITH
C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
3 XXXXXX
XXXXXXXX, PIN - 682031
BY ADV VINOD JABAR
OTHER PRESENT:
PP: K.AMMINIKUTTY
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 11207 OF 2023
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A. No.11207 of 2023
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2023
ORDER
This is the second application for pre-arrest bail filed
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.159/2022 of
Alappuzha North Police Station, alleging offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n), 354, 420 and 506 r/w Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The first application was rejected on 05-07-2022.
Though this Court had dismissed the anticipatory bail
application as mentioned above, subsequently, petitioner filed
Crl.M.C.No.1820 of 2022 and obtained an order that he shall
not be arrested on the basis of a submission that the matter
has been settled. Though the stay order is still pending, since
the victim has appeared before the Court and pointed out that
there is no such settlement as alleged, the petitioner
apprehends that the stay will be vacated, and it is in such
circumstances that this bail application has been filed.
4. According to the prosecution, during the period from
17-03-2021to 31-12-2021, petitioner had, after impressing the
BAIL APPL. NO. 11207 OF 2023
survivor that he is a divorcee, promised to marry her and
committed rape at a resort in Alappuzha repeatedly from
17-03-2021 onwards. He had also offered a partnership in a
tourist resort and even induced her to transfer a large amount
of money to him, thus committing even criminal breach of
trust.
5. After considering the entire circumstances and after
going through the case diary produced before the Court earlier,
the bail application was dismissed, observing that the Court
was not convinced of the contentions advanced on behalf of
the petitioner.
6. Sri.S.Ranjith, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
contends that a change of circumstances has arisen
warranting a re-look at the order refusing bail. He relies upon
various financial transactions between the victim and the
petitioner as evident from Annexure-A2, A3, A4 and A5 and
contended that disputes in the financial transactions have led
to the false complaint. It is also submitted that petitioner is
willing to co-operate with the investigation, and all what
remains for completing the investigation is the potency test and
recording of the arrest. Reliance was also placed on Annexure-
A15,-FIR No.428/2022 of Alappuzha South Police Station
alleging offences punishable under Section 223, 294B, and
BAIL APPL. NO. 11207 OF 2023
506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC filed by the victim against two
other persons. According to the petitioner, the said complaint
arose since the victim sent an obscene video to the 1st
accused, who is the wife of the 2nd accused in that case,
resulting in the offence specified therein. It was also submitted
that the said FIR will reveal that the victim is in the habit of
indulging in such activities, and therefore the petitioner ought
to be released on bail.
7. Sri.Vinod Jabar, the learned counsel for the victim
strongly opposed the application, pointing out that the
antecedents of the petitioner do not warrant the grant of any
anticipatory bail and also submitted that there was no change
of circumstances to reconsider the application.
8. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. The contention now raised by the petitioner regarding
the financial transactions has already been dealt with by this
Court in the earlier order. It was specifically found that this
Court was not convinced of the allegations regarding the
financial transactions as a reason for the crime registered. In
fact, this Court pointed out that there was doubt in the mind
of the Court that they were all attempts on the part of the
petitioner to hoodwink others, even the alleged settlemetn was
not believed or relied upon by the Court.
BAIL APPL. NO. 11207 OF 2023
10. Since, except for Annexure-A15 FIR, all other
contentions are mere repetitions of the contentions in the
earlier bail application, I am of the view that this is not a fit
case where anticipatory bail is required to be granted to the
petitioner, especially in the light of the earlier dismissal. Since
no change of circumstances could be pointed out by the
petitioner, I am of the view that this bail application lacks
merit.
The bail application is dismissed.
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJM
