Salim v. State of Kerala
In the High Court of Kerala
Bail Appl No. 8808 of 2018
Before Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Decided on January 30, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Bail in a rape case involving the recording of the alleged act.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66E, 67A)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 342, 366, 376D, 506(i), 212, 201, 34)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• There are 6 accused persons in this case with the applicant being the 5^th
• This is a case for bail application which involves kidnapping and rape of an actor by a group of men as a planned conspiracy.
• This dishonest plan was hatched by the first accused. The group of men had defined roles in the whole act of conspiracy. They dashed the victim’s car while she was on her way to Ernakulam in a car driven by the second accused. Initially, two men (third and fourth) entered the victim’s car and confined her. The whole act of conspiracy was executed while the car was being driven. All the accused, except the second accused (the driver), were involved in confining the victim at some point throughout the act.
• The first accused criminally intimated the victim and forced her to record her obscene video. He then undressed the victim using force and she was made to do oral sex. This act was recorded on the mobile phone. While this offensive act was taking place, the car was being driven by the third accused. Meanwhile, accused number 2, 4, 5 and 6 were following the victim’s car in a tempo traveller.
• Later, the second accused got out of the tempo traveller and took the driver’s seat in the victim’s car. He later dropped the victim at another actor’s house.
• The accused, after the commission of the offence, destroyed material evidence and absconded.

 Opinion of the Bench

• The whole sequence of events has been studied including the role assigned to the applicant during the act of conspiracy.
• It was the first accused who had committed the sexual act on the victim. At that point in time, the car was being driven by the third accused.
• The second accused who was the victim’s driver seems to have a major role when compared to that of the applicant.
• Though the prosecution has a case that the applicant also entered the victim’s car and confined her but the victim was not subjected to any abuse at that point of time.
• The applicant has been in custody for about 2 years and more than a year has elapsed after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.
• After studying the roles of the accused, the applicant falls in a different category as that of accused number 1, 2, and 3.

Final Decision

• After considering all the facts and relevant aspects of the case, it was ruled out that further detention of the applicant in custody is not necessary. The applicant can thus be granted bail by imposing stringent conditions.
• The accused must appear for further investigation as and when required. Also, he shall not enter the limits of Ernakulam and Thrissur for a period of six months.

This case summary has been prepared by Aditya Nair, a postgraduate student at NLIU, Bhopal, during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.