High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-02-03Bail application disposed of with conditions; s...

Rijas M.P v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2023-02-03
Court Decision / Holding: The court observed that while there are allegations of force, the complainant’s statements show she accompanied the petitioner to Dubai and Mumbai voluntarily, and there are monetary transactions evidenced by annexures. The FIR was registered after more than a year, following notices under Section 138 NI Act, prompting consideration of investigation dynamics. Balancing these aspects and the necessity of expeditious inquiry, the court directed the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation. Post-surrender, the petitioner is to be released on bail the same day on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, and is required to cooperate, attend weekly or as directed, refrain from contacting witnesses, and not leave Kerala without court permission. Non-compliance may lead to cancellation of bail.】
Final Disposition: Bail application disposed of with conditions; surrender for interrogation; post-surrender bail with specified bond and sureties; strict compliance and witness protection measures.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RIJAS M.P

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
• AKHIL GEORGE
• THANSEELA M.B.

Counsels for Respondents

• C S HRITHWIK

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rijas M.P., the petitioner in Bail Appl. 10358 of 2022, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 883/2022 of Elathoor Police Station, Kozhikode, registered for offences under IPC sections 376(2)(n), 354, 506 and 323. The prosecution alleges that in August 2021 the accused forcibly kissed the defacto complainant and later, after October 2021, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her in Dubai and Mumbai on several occasions, thereby committing the offences. The FIR was registered on 04.12.2022, and the investigation has since been transferred to Nadakkavu Police Station as Crime No. 1016/2022. The defence contends that the two were in a serious relationship and intended to marry; they traveled together to Dubai and Mumbai, and the complainant allegedly extracted money (Rs 4 lakh for a job, Rs 3 lakh subsequently) with cheques issued by her; the cheques were dishonoured; notices under Section 138 of the NI Act were issued; the FIR was registered in response to those notices. The applicant argues that the relationship dissolved when the complainant eloped with another man in April 2022. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing ongoing investigation. The judge, noting inconsistencies between alleged force and voluntary accompanying of the complainant, observed the presence of monetary transactions and delayed FIR, and ultimately disposed of the bail application, directing surrender for interrogation and subsequent release on bail with strict conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent tampering with witnesses.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 376(2)(n) of IPCSection 354 of IPCSection 506 of IPCSection 323 of IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that there was a serious relationship with the defacto complainant, with intent to marry, and that the alleged sexual assaults occurred at places they visited together in Dubai and Mumbai. He points to monetary transactions between the parties (Rs. 4,00,000 for a job and Rs. 3,00,000 separately) and to cheques that were issued and dishonoured, suggesting a counterblast to proceedings under Section 138 NI Act following notices. The FIR was registered long after the alleged incidents, and after initiation of NI proceedings, which, in his view, undermines the presumption of guilt and merits bail during investigation. He argues for timely investigation and cooperation, asserting willingness to cooperate and marry if valid.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution opposes bail, highlighting specific allegations of forcible acts within IPC sections and the ongoing investigation. It submits that release at this stage could impede inquiry, collection of evidence, and witness protection. The State emphasizes the seriousness of the offenses and the need to ensure cooperation and integrity of inquiry, asserting that the applicant’s release could jeopardize ongoing investigations.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rijas M.P v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022` ``` AGAINST THE CRIME NO.883/2022 OF ELATHOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ``` ## `PETITIONER/ACCUSED:` ``` RIJAS M.P AGED 27 YEARS S/O.ABUBACKER, VALAPPIL HOUSE, PERUMANNA P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673019 BY ADVS. GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT AKHIL GEORGE THANSEELA M.B. ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682031 BY ADV C S HRITHWIK - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## `ORDER` The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.883/2022 of Elathoor Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 354, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that during the month of August 2021, the accused forcibly kissed the defacto complainant and tried to establish a sexual relationship with him. Subsequently, after October 2021, the petitioner forcibly had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant in Dubai and Mumbai on various occasions and thereby committed the offences. 3. The crime was registered based on the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant, and the same was registered on 04.12.2022. Now, the said case stands transferred to Nadakkavu Police Station, and it is renumbered as Crime No.1016/2022. The investigation is now in progress. The petitioner submitted this application in such circumstances, seeking anticipatory bail. 4. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in a serious relationship, and they wanted to marry each other. It is pointed out ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` that, even going by the statement of the defacto complainant given to the police, she accompanied the petitioner at various places in Dubai and Mumbai, and the sexual assaults allegedly took place in those places. It is also the case of the petitioner that the defacto complainant had collected an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh only) to secure a job and a further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) was collected from the petitioner on various other occasions. Later, their relationship got strained, and the petitioner demanded the said amount back, and the defacto complainant issued two cheques dated 06.07.2022 and 27.06.2022, towards the repayment, for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two lakh only) and Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakh only), respectively. Later, when the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds, the petitioner caused to issue lawyer notices, dated 13.07.2022 and 11.08.2022, respectively, to the defacto complainant, for initiating the proceedings against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The defacto complainant also sent reply notices to those lawyer notices. The lawyer notices issued by the petitioner are produced as Annexures 3 and 4, whereas the reply notices are Annexures 5 and 6. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was registered after the issuance of the said notices and the reply notices, and according to him, the registration of the FIR is only a counterblast to ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` the aforesaid proceedings. 5. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was always willing to marry the defacto complainant, but it was the defacto complainant who withdrew from the relationship. To substantiate the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, during the month of April 2022, the defacto complainant eloped with another person, and in connection with the same, the father of the defacto complainant submitted a complaint before the Elathoor Police Station and Crime No.279/2022 has been registered. The copy of the said FIR was also produced before me, and I have perused the same. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand would seriously oppose the said prayer and contentions. According to him, there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and the investigation is now in progress. Therefore, if the petitioner is released on bail, it would aversly affect the investigation. 7. After considering all the relevant aspects, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is discernible that, there are several transactions, including monetary transactions between the parties. Even though, the defacto complainant alleges forceful sexual assaults being committed upon her by the ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` petitioner, her statement reveals that she accompanied him to various places voluntarily. The financial transactions between the parties are also evident from Annexures 3 to 6 documents. The FIR was registered after more than one year of the date of the incident, and that too after the initiation of proceedings against her by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, when all the aforesaid aspects are taken into consideration, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be simply brushed aside. However, since the matter is now under investigation, it is only proper that the Investigation Officer completes the investigation as expeditiously as possible, for which the cooperation of the petitioner is necessary. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this bail application directing the surrender of the petitioner before the Investigation Officer. 8. In such circumstances, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions:- - i The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation; - ii After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; - iii The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for recovery, if any, as and when demanded. - iv The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Monday until the filing of the final report. - v The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him. - vi The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail. - vii The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation. - viii The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` permission of the trial Court. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, filed and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. ``` Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ``` BR ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10358 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10358/2022` |`PETITIONER’S`|`ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`Annexure-1`|`TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE FIRST`| ||`INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 04.12.2022`| |`Annexure-2`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME`| ||`NO.883/2022 OF ELATHOOR POLICE STATION`| ||`DATED 04.12.2022`| |`Annexure-3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED`| ||`13.07.2022 SENT TO THE DEFACTO`| ||`COMPLAINANT.`| |`Annexure-4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED`| ||`11.08.2022 SENT TO THE DEFACTO`| ||`COMPLAINANT`| |`Annexure-5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED`| ||`22.07.2022 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE`| ||`DEFACTO COMPLAINANT TO THE NOTICE DATED`| ||`13.07.2022`| |`Annexure-6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED`| ||`22.07.2022 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE`| ||`DEFACTO COMPLAINANT TO THE NOTICE DATED`| ||`11.08.2022`| |`Annexure-7`|`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME`| ||`NO.279/2022 OF ELATHOOR POLICE STATION`| ``` RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL ```