Kerala High Court
Fakrudeen A vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2025
2025:KER:38364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 839 OF 2025
CRIME NO.546/2025 OF ARYANAD POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CRL.M.C NO.247/2025 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST(POA)
ACT,NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
FAKRUDEEN A,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. ALIYARUKUNJ, JENNATH,
OPPOSITE IOC PETROL PUMP,
MOLIYOORCHEMMOD ROAD,
KATTAKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 572.
BY ADV SMT.MEREENA.J.JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT/DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SHO, ARYANADU POLICE STATION,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
CRL.A NO.839 OF 2025
2025:KER:38364
2
2 NEETHU
AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. GEETHA, KIZHAKKUMKARAPUTHEN VEEDU,
KOTTOOR, MANOORKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL,
PIN - 695 574.
SMT. SEENA C. - PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO.839 OF 2025
2025:KER:38364
3
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed challenging the order dated
05.05.2025 in Crl.M.C No.247/2025 on the file of the Special
Judge, Special Court for the Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA)
Act, Nedumangad, dismissing an application filed by the appellant
for Anticipatory Bail in connection with Crime No.546 of 2025 of
Aryanadu Police Station.
2. The brief facts are as follows:-
The appellant/accused is a Government Ayurvedic Doctor.
It is alleged that the victim, who belongs to one of the Scheduled
Castes, had approached the appellant for treatment for pain and
other discomfort following a fall suffered while riding a
motorcycle. It is alleged that, after the initial consultation on
14.04.2025, the appellant/accused had required the victim to
report back for further treatment and on 16.04.2025, the
appellant made some sexually coloured remarks. It is alleged that
on 17.04.2025, the appellant made the victim lie down on the bed
in his examination room and under the pretext of applying oil to
CRL.A NO.839 OF 2025
2025:KER:38364
relieve the pain, sexually abused the victim and thereby he
committed the offences alleged against him.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the
appellant has almost 20 years of service as a Government
Ayurvedic doctor and no such allegation has earlier been raised
against the appellant. It is submitted that if the appellant is
arrested and detained in connection with the investigation into
the allegations raised against him, the appellant will be put to
serious prejudice, injury and hardship. It is submitted that the
family of the appellant consisting of his wife (who is also an
Ayurvedic doctor) and his two daughters will face great trauma if
the appellant is arrested and detained in connection with the false
allegations raised against him. It is submitted that the appellant
had only given treatment to the victim and there is no element of
sexual abuse. It is submitted that considering the nature of the
allegations levelled against the appellant, the custodial
interrogation of the appellant may not be necessary and the
appellant may, therefore, be granted anticipatory bail subject to
CRL.A NO.839 OF 2025
2025:KER:38364
any stringent condition that this Court may deem appropriate to
impose.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the appellant is
clearly not entitled to anticipatory bail considering the nature of
the allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that the
appellant had misused his position as a Government doctor and
had sexually abused the victim going by the allegations raised
against him. It is submitted that the appellant has already been
suspended from service on account of the allegations raised
against him. It is submitted that the investigation into the matter
is only progressing and the grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellant at this stage may not be conducive to the investigation.
It is submitted that the prime witnesses in the case will be
employees of the Ayurvedic hospital in which the appellant was
serving. It is also pointed out that on the last posting date, the de-
facto complainant / victim had personally appeared before this
Court and had objected to the grant of anticipatory bail to the
appellant.
CRL.A NO.839 OF 2025
2025:KER:38364
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned Public Prosecutor and having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the
appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. It
is true that the allegations raised against the appellant (as noticed
above) are serious. However, the fact remains that the appellant is
a Government doctor, who has been in service for nearly 20 years
and no such allegation has been raised against the appellant thus
far. That apart, the nature of the allegations levelled against the
appellant indicate that the investigation into case registered
against the appellant can be completed without having the custody
of the appellant. The apprehension of the learned Public
Prosecutor that the appellant may influence the witnesses need
not deter this Court from granting anticipatory bail as the
appellant is already under suspension through order dated
05.05.2025 of the Government. Therefore, I am of the view that
the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent
conditions.
6. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and the impugned
CRL.A NO.839 OF 2025
2025:KER:38364
order dated 05.05.2025 in Crl.M.C.No.247/2025 on the file of the
Special Judge, Special Court for the Trial of Offences under SC/ST
(POA) Act, Nedumangad, is set aside and it is directed that the
appellant shall be released on bail in the event of arrest in
connection with Crime No.546/2025 of Aryanadu Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram District, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i)The appellant shall execute bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Arresting officer;
(ii)The appellant shall appear before the investigating
officer in Crime No.546/2025 of Aryanad Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram District, whenever called upon to do
so;
(iii)The appellant shall not intimidate the victim or family
members of the victim;
(iv)The appellant shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any witness
CRL.A NO.839 OF 2025
2025:KER:38364
in the case;
(v) The appellant be deemed to be in custody for the
purpose of any recovery even when he is on anticipatory
bail;
(vi)The appellant shall not involve in any other crime while
on bail.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
SPR/DK
