2025:KER:27704 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 510 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 IN CRMP NO.322 OF 2025 OF SPECIAL COURT- OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT,1989, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ANSHAD AGED 38 YEARS S/O SHAMSUDEEN, MALLANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, IKBAL NAGAR, VADAKKEVILA P.O, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691010 FRANCIS ASSISI T.D.ROBIN AJEESH S.BRITE AMRUTHA P S MANJU LUCKOSE MAYUKHA SAJEEV RESPONDENT S / COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, PIN - 683514 SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27704 CRL.A NO. 510 OF 2025 2 C.S.SUDHA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2025 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April 2025 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (the Act) filed by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.1063/2024, Ernakulam Town North police station, aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, namely, Crl.M.P No.322/2025 on the file of the court of the Special Judge for the trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, Ernakulam, seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that there was never any promise of marriage by the latter to the 2nd respondent. The appellant is only 38 years old, whereas the 2nd respondent, the victim, is 59 years old. The sexual 2025:KER:27704 CRL.A NO. 510 OF 2025 3 relationship between the parties was consensual. The coitus took place in various hotels. The fact that it was consensual is evident from the fact that the bills were paid by the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that an amount of 48,00,000/- was transferred by the 2 ₹ nd respondent to the account of the appellant/accused in order to trap him. Apart from some petty cases, there is only one crime alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC against the appellant. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant canvasses for an order of regular bail as no further detention of the appellant/accused is required. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the request for bail and submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order calling for an interference by this Court. The appellant/accused has criminal antecedents. It is not only petty cases that have been registered against him, but there are cases wherein he is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC etc. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions also submits 2025:KER:27704 CRL.A NO. 510 OF 2025 4 that the appellant/accused has a history of committing similar offences against other women also and therefore he is not entitled to regular bail as prayed for. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The prosecution case is that the appellant/accused promised to marry the 2nd respondent, the victim, without any intention of fulfilling the same and had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions at different places. The 2nd respondent at the request of the appellant/accused is alleged to have transferred an amount of 48,00,000/- to the account of the latter, which he had ₹ promised to return. However, the same was never returned. The prosecution also has a case that the gold ornaments of the 2nd respondent had been taken and pawned by the appellant/accused. It is seen from the report of the investigating officer that was handed over to me during the course of arguments that there are other cases of similar nature against the appellant/accused. The impugned order also refers to the criminal antecedents of the appellant/accused. In 2025:KER:27704 CRL.A NO. 510 OF 2025 5 paragraph no.9, it is stated that in one of the cases, he had absconded, which was one of the reasons which prompted the trial Judge to dismiss the application for regular bail. In the light of the criminal antecedents of the appellant/accused, the seriousness of the crime committed coupled with his tendency to abscond, I find that the trial Judge was justified in rejecting the plea for bail. Hence, I find no grounds for interference. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE NP 2025:KER:27704 CRL.A NO. 510 OF 2025 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.A 510/2025 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES Annexure -I A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN THE CRIME NO.1063/2024 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION Annexure -II A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure -III ACCUSED COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 IN CRL.M.P NO. 322/2025, OF HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRAIL OF OFFENCES UNDER THE SC AND ST(POA) ACT, ERNAKULAM RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES: NIL