Kerala High Court
Arun Kumar vs Versus State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2025
2025:KER:75877
CRL.A NO. 1815 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1815 OF 2025
CRIME NO.944/2025 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2025 IN CRMP NO.1710 OF 2025
OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA)
ACT,1989, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ARUN KUMAR V S
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O SREEKUMAR THAPPATT VEEDU,THEMALIL ROAD
KADUGALLOOR,ALUVA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683102
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SHYAM KUMAR M.P
SHRI.MUHAMMED NAZIM K.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SISIRA C B ( IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED25/9/25
IN CRL.MA 1/25) )
AGED 33 YEARS, D/O C M BALAN, GAYATHRI HOUSE,
PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR- 680555 NOW
RESIDING AT PRIM ROSE APARTMENT, NO. 7C,
CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM ( IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 25/9/25 IN CRL.MA 1/25)
2025:KER:75877
CRL.A NO. 1815 OF 2025 2
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. BINDHU.O.V (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2025 AND HAVING BEEN FINANLY HEARDON 13.10.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:75877
CRL.A NO. 1815 OF 2025 3
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act'), challenging an order
dated 11.09.2025 in Crl. M.P. No.1710/2025 on the file of the Special
Judge for the Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ernakulam,
through which an application filed by the appellant for regular bail in
connection with Crime No.944/2025 of Nedumbasssery Police
Station, Ernakulam was dismissed by that court. The allegation
leading to registration of Crime No.944/2025 of Nedumbassery
Police Station is that the appellant who is working as a trainer at a
gym named Cross Fit at Kunnumpuram Desom with the intention of
sexually assaulting the de facto complainant [who used to frequent
the gym for exercise] forced the victim to have sexual relationships
with him. It is alleged that he captured the nude pictures and videos
of the de facto complainant on his mobile phone and thereafter,
under threat of publishing the same, had forced the victim to have
sexual relationships with him on several occasions. It is also alleged
2025:KER:75877
that by threatening to disclose her obscene pictures and videos, the
appellant had extorted a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the de facto
complainant.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that the appellant is totally innocent in the matter. It is submitted
that, at best, it could be said that the appellant and the victim who
were both married, had a consensual relationship. It is submitted
that the appellant is totally innocent in the matter. It is submitted
that, even according to the First Information Statement, the
relationship lasted for nearly seven months and it cannot be stated
that the appellant had committed rape on the victim. It is submitted
that the allegation of the appellant having captured nude pictures and
videos of the victim on his mobile phone and having threatened her
using the same is cooked up for the purposes of the case and there is
no truth in the said allegation. It is submitted that the appellant has
been in custody for 58 days and continued detention of the appellant
is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant
of bail. It is pointed out that, according to the de facto
2025:KER:75877
complainant/victim, the first incident of sexual relationship was an
act of rape and the appellant/accused forced her to continue the
relationship using nude pictures and videos captured on his mobile
phone. It is submitted that there is also an allegation that the
appellant had extorted a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the de facto
complainant/victim using the threat of publishing the pictures and
videos in his possession. It is submitted that the matter is under
investigation and the grant of bail at this stage may not be conducive
to the investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that the
notice of this bail application has been served on the de facto
complainant/victim.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the appellant can be
granted bail subject to stringent conditions. The allegations against
the appellant are as noticed above. While the allegations against the
appellant are serious, it does not appear that his continued detention
is necessary for the purposes of completing the investigation into the
case registered against him. He has already been in custody for a
period of 58 days. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the
2025:KER:75877
appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set
aside, and it is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
(ii) The appellant shall appear before the Station House Officer,
Nedumbassery Police Station as and when called upon to do
so;
(iii) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence;
(iv) The appellant shall surrender his passport before the
jurisdictional Court. If the appellant does not have a
Passport, he shall execute an affidavit to that effect and file
2025:KER:75877
the same before the jurisdictional court within seven days of
release on bail;
(v) The appellant shall not involve in any other crime while on
bail.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the
prosecution may file an application before this Court for cancellation
of bail.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
2025:KER:75877
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED
17/8/2025
Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.
1660 OF 2025 DATED 23/08/2025
Annexure 3 THE FREE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.
1710 OF 2025 DATED 11/09/2025
