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, 370(D), 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 learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed this application for pre arrest bail. The Prosecutor would further submit, on instructions that the picture that emerges from the statement given by the victim presents a sordid state of affairs and it clearly shows that the petitioner who is accused No.1 had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and that thus facilitated the commission of the offence of rape by accused Nos.2 and 3 on the de facto complainant and that the accused intimidating criminal force with intent to disrobe the lady de facto complainant and that the accused persons in this crime had 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 prosecutor would further state that the petitioner herein is involved in seven crimes registered at Kothamangalam Police Station. Crime No.756 of 2011 had been registered for the offences punishable under Secs.366A, 373, 376, 109 read with Sec.23 of Juvenile Justice Act. The allegation is that a minor girl was subjected to rape by the petitioner. Crime No.354 of 2012 had been registered against the petitioner is for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 324, 506(II) and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Crime No.818 of 2012 is one initiated under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crime No.1717 of 2013 is for offences punishable under Secs.143, 144, 148, 342, 308 read with Sec.149. Crime No.303 of 2008 is initiated for offence under Sec.3 read with Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Sec. 51 of the Gas Cylinder Rules. Crime No.1092 of 2008 is registered for offences under Secs.3 r/w Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Sec. 51 of the Gas Cylinder Rules. Crime No.1281 of 2008 are those involved in offences punishable under Sec.3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act r/w Rule 3(1) r/w 4(1) and 7 of the LPG Order 2000. Considering the extreme gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner in the instant crime and considering the fact that the petitioner has been accused in one crime of having committed rape on a minor girl and is accused in another crime of the commission of the offence of Sec.308 (attempt to murder) and various other offences in the aforementioned crimes, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this application for anticipatory bail.
4. 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.
5. Grant or refusal of bail depends on multifarious factors to be taken into account by the Court before taking a decision on the issue of exercise of discretion under Sec.438. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the extreme gravity of the allegations made against the petitioner in the instant crime and taking into account the involvement of the petitioner in seven crimes, some of which are extremely serious, this Court is fully satisfied that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion for the grant of the pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to refuse the said prayer of anticipatory bail and the application stands dismissed.
Stu ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge