X Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforecaptioned four Criminal Miscellaneous Cases have been filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the anticipatory bail orders granted by the Sessions Court, Kasaragod on 18.09.2020 to the nd respondent/accused concerned in respect of their involvement in each of the four separate crimes registered against them by the Kasaragod BEKAL Police Station for various offences as per Secs.376(2)(n), 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As each of these accused person concerned were initially arrayed as accused persons in the first crime registered in relation to series of instances in question, in which accused Thufail was arrayed as accused No.2 in each of these four FIRs/crimes, have been split up later from the initial First Information Report, viz. Crime No.468/2020 of Bakel Police Station and as the incidents in these cases are now said to have close nexus with the incident in the said abovesaid first FIR in these cases and as the lady de facto complainant in each of these cases is the same person and as many of the issues raised in these petitions are common, these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common order.

(2.) Initially it may be pertinent to refer briefly to the facts in respect of the abovesaid first FIR, viz., Crime No.468/2020 of Bakel Police Station as well as the facts in Crl.M.C No.4603/2020, which arises out of the anticipatory bail plea granted in favour of accused No.1 in Crime No.471/2020 of Bakel Police Station, which is the subject matter of the said Crl.M.C No.4603/2020. It is to be noted that the accused No.1 in Crime No.468/2020, who is the accused No.2 in the other crimes, has not applied for or secured anticipatory bail, as he is now stated to be abroad. Initially, Annexure-I Crime No.468/2020 of Bakel Police Station was registered as against five accused persons (viz., Thufail, Asharaf, Abdul Rahiman, Muneer and Asif). The said Annexure-I FIR (referred for convenience as the first FIR) or the first crime, is stated to have been registered on 31.08.2020 on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the petitioner herein (lady de facto complainant) in respect of the alleged incidents which happened from March, 2016 onwards, etc. Later, the police authorities have split up the cases by separately registering FIR in relation to the involvements of the abovesaid A2 to A5 in the first FIR by registering Crime Nos.471/2020 (in which the abovesaid Asharaf, has been arrayed as A1), Crime No.472/2020 (in which the said Abdul Rahman has been arrayed as A1) & Crime No.473/2020 (in which the abovesaid Muneer has been arrayed as A1 therein) and Crime No.474/2020, in which the said Asif has been arrayed as A1 therein. These cases have been split up and separately registered on the basis of the same First Information Statement on the basis of which the first FIR was registered. Later it appears that 13 other crimes have also been separately registered in regard to the involvement of 13 other persons in relation to the similar allegations of rape said to have been committed against the abovesaid lady de facto complainant. It is also to be noted that the abovesaid Thufail (A1 in the first FIR), has been arrayed as A2 in each of other subsequently registered crimes. For the sake of convenience, the abovesaid Thufail will be referred for short as A2, as he has been arrayed as A2 in the abovesaid subsequently registered crimes. Whereas, each of the accused persons, who have secured anticipatory bail in these cases will be referred for short as A1 in the respective crimes concerned.

(3.) The brief of the prosecution case in pursuance of the abovesaid First Information Statement is that the lady de facto complainant is now aged about 25 years and that she is a married lady, who is having three children and studied upto plus two and that earlier, her husband was in Qatar and about four years back, he left his job in the Gulf country and had setup a shop near the beach of Kozhikode. It appears that the lady victim, who was staying in the place at Kasaragode, became acquainted with the abovesaid Thufail and his wife, as he happened to be a friend of her husband. That she also got friendly with the wife of Thufail and used to contact through telephone. That Thufail was in a Gulf country and when he had come down to his native place, he along with his wife had come to visit the lady. On the next day, she got a call in her mobile from the mobile of Thufail's wife between 9.30 p.m-10.30 p.m. and then it was revealed that it was Thufail speaking. He spoke on friendly terms and later he used to frequently telephoned her. After that on a day, he had called her at 9.30 p.m. in the night and asked her to keep her door open at 2 a.m. in the midnight and she did that and that he came to her house and had sexual relationship with her on that day. Later, he again told her to keep the door of her house open and he used to come on few other occasions as well. Then she had opposed it and he threatened her that he is having her naked video pictures and that he would divulge it, if she does not conceive to his demands. Later he used to come on certain days and give her some rose colour beverage, which was sour in taste and she objected to drinking it. Then he had slapped on her face and forced her to drink it and he had also forced her to smell some white powder and when she refused, he had severely assaulted her. Later on 28.03.2016, he had threatened and had forcible sexual intercourse with her, etc. Various other allegations are made therein and had forced her to smoke and taken its video and that later on 12.04.2016, he (Thufail) had called her and then came to her house at 2a.m. along with one Asharaf and Abdul Rahman and then Asharaf had forcibly raped her and that too in the presence of Abdul Rahman. Later on 2-3 occasions, the said Abdul Rahman had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Later, Thufail had called her on 15.06.2016 and asked her to keep her door open at 2 a.m. and at that time one Muneer had come there and he threatened that he would divulge her obscene video pictures regarding sexual incidents, etc. Later, Thufail had again asked her to keep her door open and on that day, Asif had come there and again threatened about divulging her obscene video pictures and on account of the threat, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Later, he also used to come on few other occasions. Thus it appears that the case set up in the FIS is that though the first sexual incident was with the consent and on later occasions, the said Thufail had threatened her to divulge her obscene video pictures and had also used force by making a drink of certain beverages and also to smoke and inhale some powders, etc. and that based on his threat, the other accused persons had forcible sexual intercourse with the lady victim, etc.