Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
PRASHOB @ SHOBY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
BAIL APPL. NO. 9015 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.SUNITHA K.G., SRI.K.P.PRASANTH, SHRI.T.A.AJMAL HUSSAIN, SHRI.ARUNRAJ S., SHRI.ULLAS U., SMT.DHANYA K., SMT.SREELAKSHMI K.
For the Respondents: SRI. NOUSHAD K. A.
The court denied a pre-arrest bail application due to serious allegations of rape and prior criminal record necessitating custodial investigation.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Application for pre-arrest bail - Allegations of rape and coercion to upload videos on social media - Court held that the nature of allegations and the accused's previous record do not warrant pre-arrest bail. (Paras 2, 7, 8)
(B) Nature of custody - The court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in establishing the facts of the case and protecting the victim’s interests.
Findings of Court:
The application for bail is denied based on the serious nature of allegations and previous criminal record of the accused.
Issues: The main issues discussed revolved around the validity of the allegations and the necessity for custodial investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the serious nature of the charges against the petitioner, along with prior offenses, justified denying bail.
Result: Bail application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conditions and background for the bail application. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by petitioner counsel versus public prosecutor. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's evaluation of the allegations and denial of bail. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.237 of 2025 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 64 , 127(2) and 35(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 apart from Section 66 (E) of the Information Technology Act , 2000.
3. According to the prosecution, the accused had on 28.11.2024, invited the de-facto complainant under the pretext of a modelling photo shoot and thereafter took her to a room and forcibly committed rape on her and took the videographs and spread the same through social media and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and that he has no involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that custodial interrogation is essential.
7. Petitioner is alleged to have raped the victim who had approached him for a modelling photo shoot. Petitioner is the owner of a modelling company by name 'Mist Fashion'. The victim alleges that on 28.11.2024, he had promised to arrange a modelling shoot for the victim and thereafter took her to a hotel in Kaloor and asked her to get freshened up in the room. Thereafter when she came out for the photo shoot, he forced himself upon her and despite her objection, he prevailed upon her with force and also took her nude videos and threatened not to reveal the incident to any one as otherwise he would upload this in the social media. Later, she realised that the petitioner had uploaded the videos and thereby committed the offences alleged.
8. A reading of the statement of the defacto complainant clearly reveals that the petitioner had committed rape on the victim on 28.11.2024 and even uploaded the sexual act. Considering the nature of allegations, I am of the view that petitioner cannot be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail. In this context, it is also worthwhile to mention that the petitioner was arrested in connection with another crime as Crime No.63 of 2025 of Kasaragod Police Station on 03.06.2025 and his mobile phones are allegedly seized by the police therein.
Considering the nature of allegations and also his antecedents, I am of the view that petitioner cannot be protected with an order of pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.
