High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 04 KL CK 0117

Muhammed Shamil V.M vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 April 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. Badharudeen, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2391 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 596 words

A. Badharudeen, J.

1.

This regular bail application is at the instance of the sole accused in Crime No.125 of 2024 of Kozhikode Town Police Station, Kozhikode, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376D of the Indian Penal Code

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the relevant documents form part of the case diary.

3.

Precisely stating the prosecution allegation is as under: The defacto complainant is a woman with mild intellectual disability.  The 1st  accused befriended the defacto complainant in 2022 and at the request of the 1st accused, the defacto complainant, a native of Kunnamangalam, reached Kozhikode one day and the 1st accused took the mentally retarded defacto complainant on a scooter to a lodge situated near Kozhikode railway station by name Darvesh Residency and at Room No.103 of the said lodge, the 1st accused committed rape on the defacto complainant and subsequently on the same day the 2nd accused also committed rape on the defacto complainant. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the 1st accused again brought the defacto complainant to the very same lodge on a later date and again committed rape on her and impregnated her and thereby the defacto complainant delivered a child on 16.09.2023. Hence, according to the prosecution, the 1st accused has committed the aforesaid offences.

4.

While canvassing regular bail to the petitioner, who has been in custody from 10.02.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that investigation has been in progress and the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Highlighting the progress of the investigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed regular bail to the petitioner.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed the bail and submitted that there are materials in abundance to show, prima facie, that the defacto complainant, who is a native of Kunnamangalam, reached Kozhikode one day and the 1st accused took the mentally retarded defacto complainant on a scooter to a lodge situated near Kozhikode railway station by name Darvesh Residency and the defacto complainant was subjected to rape at Room No.103. Similarly 2nd accused also committed rape on the defacto complainant. Similar incident was repeated and ultimately the defacto complainant delivered a child on 16.09.2023. In such view of the matter, the prosecution allegations are very serious. It is also submitted that this is the second POCSO case registered against the petitioner since he is in the habit of cheating poor girls. Crime No.187/2023 of Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad, registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376 IPC and 3(1)(w)(1), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, where the petitioner is involved.

6.

On perusal of the materials available, the prosecution case is well made out and the allegations are very serious. A mentally disabled person was subjected to rape and the same resulted in delivery of a child. Apart from the statements received from the police, the victim also had given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C against the accused with certainty pointing out his guilt, prima facie.

7.

Since it is noticed that the petitioner, who committed a very serious crime as alleged by the prosecution and involved in a similar crime by subjecting rape against a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, if released on bail, he would repeat similar crimes. Therefore, he is not liable to be released on bail and trial shall be ensured after keeping him in custody.

Hence this Bail Application shall stand dismissed.