Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1812 (KER)

Deepthi, W/o. Shajil C. v. State of Kerala

2025-07-03

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

body2025
ORDER : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’). 2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.559/2025 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur registered for the offences punishable under sections 351(2), 296(b) and 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and 67(a) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’). 3. The prosecution alleges that the first accused had, after obtaining certain nude photographs of the de facto complainant during the period from 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024 committed rape on her at Sharjah and again in a rented house in Kerala and thereafter threatened the defacto complainant to transfer Rs.9,50,000/- to the Bank account of the second accused and also threatened to kill the children of the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences alleged. 4. I have heard Sri.M.R.Dhanil, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.Vivek P K, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that she has no involvement in the alleged crime. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. The petitioner’s husband is the first accused. He is alleged to have raped the defacto complainant from January 2024 to December 2024 at various places inside and outside the country. 8. The de facto complainant is alleged to have transferred large amounts of money into the account of the petitioner. The statement of the de facto complainant indicates that the amounts were transferred on the direction of the first accused. Petitioner’s role in the said transfer is not evident. Even according to the de facto complainant, it was at the direction and insistence of the first accused that the amounts were transferred. 9. The statement of the de facto complainant indicates that the amounts were transferred on the direction of the first accused. Petitioner’s role in the said transfer is not evident. Even according to the de facto complainant, it was at the direction and insistence of the first accused that the amounts were transferred. 9. Though the de facto complainant alleges that the petitioner had threatened her, since the petitioner’s husband is alleged to have raped the de facto complainant for a sufficiently long period of time at various places and had even obtained her nude photographs and videos of the de facto complainant, I am of the view that the allegation of the de facto complainant against the petitioner cannot be prima facie viewed as sufficient enough to require a custodial interrogation. 10. Apart from the above, the de facto complainant is a matured lady of 49 years old, and she has, in her statement, mentioned that she had indulged in the physical relationship with the husband of the petitioner on several occasions, though she alleges those as instances of rape. 11. Taking note of the above circumstances as evident from the statement of the defacto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail subject to conditions. 12. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 (5) SCC 1 , it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court. 13. In Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274], it has been held that a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie case as to why custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. 14. 14. In the instant case, the State has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Further, having regard to the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment,this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions: (a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 15.07.2025 and shall subject herself to interrogation. (b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer. (c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation. (d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall she tamper with the evidence. (e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while she is on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.