Blog

Petitioner who is alleged of the offence of rape on a student was granted bail as he is not a flight risk and his presence can be ensured at the trial of the case and was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. in the case of DR.SUNIL KUMAR .S v. STATE OF KERALA (BAIL APPL. NO. 2587 OF 2022) on 8^th April, 2022.

Brief facts of the case as per prosecution case is that the petitioner who is working as the Dean of the School of Drama and Fine Arts, Aranattukara, Thrissur committed the offence of rape on a student of the institute and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on 24-02-2022 the alleged victim had filed a complaint against the petitioner and one Raja Warrier who is also a teacher at the school alleging that Raja Warrier had insulted her while taking class and informing the petitioner of the incident the petitioner did not take action and instead called the victim over telephone and mouthed obscenities against her. On the basis of the complaint given by the alleged victim registered against the petitioner and Raja Warrier alleging commission of offences under Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC. He points out that on the very next day, on 26-02-2022, complaint is filed alleging that the petitioner had committed rape on the victim without specifying any date or time of incident. He submitted that the victim had every opportunity to raise the very same complaint when she had filed the initial complaint on 24-02-2022 and when she gave the statement before the police on 25-02-2022. Without doing the same victim has filed a false complaint against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has matrimonial disputes with his wife and refers to Annexure-5 whatsapp communication between the petitioner and his wife to show that his wife was very well aware that the alleged victim is going to file a complaint against the petitioner. He submitted that the complaint is nothing but a false and cooked up complaint at the instance of the wife of the petitioner. And that as per the instructions received by him, the victim has also not cooperated with the medical examination and actually refused to attend any medical examination.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his wife is behind the filing of the complaint by the victim is not a matter which can be taken into consideration at this point of time as evidence will be required to prove the same. He submitted that the petitioner is accused of very serious offences and is not entitled to be released on bail as on date.

Court in regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case held that the petitioner has been in custody for 39 days and it would be injustice to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is not a flight risk and his presence can be ensured at the trial of the case. Final report has also been filed in the matter. Therefore, allowed the bail application.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh