Can't Grant Anticipatory Bail To Rape Accused Merely Because He Was Aged Only 18 Yrs When Alleged Offence Was Committed: Kerala High Court

Justice Gopinath P. observed thus:

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Though the petitioner is stated to have been only 18 years of age at the time when the offence was committed, that by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, especially considering the nature of the offence involved.”

The accused was charged under Section 452 (house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, wrongful restrain), 354 (assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty). 354A(1)(i) (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 354B (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 376(2)(f) (punishment for rape on relative) and 376(2)(n) (punishment for committing rape repeatedly on the same woman) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 92(b) (punishment for offences of atrocities) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for allegedly committing rape on his disabled cousin sister.

The Counsel for the accused, Advocate P K Varghese submitted that he was only 18 years old when the alleged offence was committed. It was submitted that the accused and the victim were living in adjacent houses and that the prosecution story was unbelievable because of the delay in filing the FIR. It was also argued that the medical examination of the accused was over, and his custody was not necessary for completing the investigation.

The anticipatory bail application was strongly opposed by Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan and it was submitted that the victim has clearly spoken and identified accused as the perpetrator of the crime. It was also submitted that the victim was a disabled lady suffering from substantial hearing disability.

The Court stated that the accused cannot be granted anticipatory bail on the ground that he was only aged 18 years when the alleged offence was committed. The Court also noted that the victim has clearly identified the accused as the as the perpetrator of the crime.

“The petitioner and the victim are stated to be living in adjacent houses. The victim is also stated to be a disabled person. She has also clearly identified the petitioner as the perpetrator of the crime. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion vested in this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”

On the above observations, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 559

Case title: XXXX v State of Kerala

Case number: Bail Appl. No. 7083 of 2023

Click here to download/read Order