SALAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused No. 1 in Crime No. 2558 of 2013 of Kothamangalam Police Station, Ernakulam District, wherein two other accused are arrayed. The said crime is registered for offences punishable under Sections 450, 341, 370D, 354(B), 394, 506(i) read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 27 -12 -2013 at about 11 a.m., the petitioner herein (A1) with accused Nos. 2 and 3 had trespassed into the residential house where the lady de facto complainant and her husband were residing which is situated just adjacent to the public road in question and thereafter the 2nd and 3rd accused had committed rape on the de facto complainant and the 1st accused had facilitated for it by way of wrongfully restraining the de facto complainant. It is the further case of the prosecution that the 1st accused had used criminal force with intent to disrobe the victim. It is the further case of the prosecution that after the commission of rape, the accused had also snatched away the gold ornaments worth 16,000/ - and a sum of 9,000/ - which was kept by the de facto complainant in her purse. The prosecution has got a further case that in that incident, the accused had also criminally intimidated the de facto complainant.

(2.) SRI A. Cherian, the learned counsel for the petitioner would seriously urge that the aforementioned allegations in the said crime had been falsely foisted against the petitioner due to political rivalry. It is the further submission that the petitioner herein (A1) had never involved in the alleged rape committed by the 2nd and 3rd accused and that therefore, he is entitled for bail. It is the further case that even going by the versions projected by the prosecution, the 1st accused had only committed the offence punishable under Sec. 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the petitioner would fully co -operate with the investigation and would abide by any condition that are deemed necessary and just by this Court and that he may be given the relief of pre arrest bail in this case.

(3.) THE gist of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor is fully reflected in the order rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in Annexure A1 order dated 19 -9 -2014 wherein the anticipatory bail prayer of the petitioner herein in the instant crime has been refused. Sri A. Cherian, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor are wrong and untenable. This Court is not in any way persuaded to accept the plea of the petitioner's counsel, because the learned Public Prosecutor has made submissions on the basis of instructions which fully tally with the factual details in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure A1 and this Court is constrained to hold that such untenable and preposterous submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in a case like this, cannot be countenanced.