SUJITH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 20 of 2022 of Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. He seeks pre-arrest bail under sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) The prosecution alleges that petitioner had committed rape on the defacto complainant on 27/9/2020 after taking her to a hotel near 'Akulam' and thereby committed the offences under Sec. 376(2), 354-D(1)(i), 341, 342, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) Sri. S. Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution case is totally false and that at the most the allegations will reveal only a consensual relationship. He further pointed out that the complaint has been preferred only after one and a half years of the alleged incident, which itself shows the falsity of the allegations. It was submitted that petitioner was working under the defacto complainant, who is an Assistant Executive Engineer with an M.Tech degree and her husband is working abroad. Petitioner further contended that even going by the version of the defacto complainant herself, on 27/9/2020, she went with the accused to an OYO Hotel and was subjected to rape inside the hotel room, which by itself is not worthy of belief. Learned counsel further pointed out that there were other instances when the defacto complainant had gone with the petitioner to different tourist resorts which was suppressed by her and which indicates the consensual nature of their relationship. On the above basis, petitioner urged this Court to grant pre-arrest bail and offered to abide by any conditions.