Bail Appl./8615/2012 of AMRUTHESHWARA.A. Vs THE STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012

Order

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.635/12 ofBekal Police Station for having committed the offencespunishable under Ss.365, 342, 376 and 506(ii) IPC. Theprosecution allegation is that on 06.08.2012, while the defactocomplainant was waiting at the Mailatty Choukki Bus Stop,under the pretext of taking her to an Advocate, the petitionertook her in an auto rickshaw, wrongfully confined her in a roomtill 08.08.2012 and committed rape on her. The petitioner wouldpoint out that the allegations are totally false and have beencooked up for the purpose of the case. Reference was madeto Annexures III and IV, to contend for the position that thepetitioner is totally innocent. According to the petitioner, beforethe police and the learned Magistrate, the defacto complainanthad no case that she had been ravished by him. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner pointed out that Annexures I, III andIV are contradictory in nature and they show the hollowness ofthe complaint, so says the learned counsel for the petitioner.

BA No.8615/12

2. Even though there are some discrepancies with regard to the allegations, it cannot be a ground to believe thatthe story is totally false. While the complainant complained ofhaving been ravished at the first instance, she had no suchcase when produced before the learned Magistrate. She hasgiven a reason for the same. But, the veracity or thegenuineness of the complaint is not a matter for determinationas of now. It is difficult to believe that a lady will simply file acomplaint for having been raped, especially when the actbrings no credit to her. Considering the nature of allegationsagainst the petitioner, the manner in which the acts are allegedto have been committed and the fact that the investigation isstill going on, it is felt that it will be inappropriate to grant bail tothe petitioner. The application is accordingly dismissed.

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

sta