AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 510 wordsZiyad Rahman A.A, J
This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.140 of 2023 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354B and 376(1) IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 23.02.2023, the de facto complainant was raped by the petitioner, stating that he has with him the pictures and videos of the de facto complainant, which will be circulated on Social media. The crime was registered in such circumstances, and in connection with the investigation of the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 26.02.2023. Since then, he has been under judicial detention. This bail application is submitted in such circumstances.
Heard Sri. Tony Thomas Inchiparambil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Firoz, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint, which forms the basis of the registration of the crime itself, is filed on a misconception between the parties. According to him, the petitioner and the de facto complainant were known to each other for several years, and it is pointed out that now the parties have settled the matter between them. An affidavit sworn by the victim is also produced as Annexure-A to substantiate the same. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant confirms the said settlement. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that, during the course of the investigation, a further statement of the de facto complainant was recorded, wherein she stated that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and the earlier complaint was submitted on a mistaken action.
In such circumstances, taking note of the above aspects, I am of the view that there is no need to keep the petitioner under detention any longer. Hence, this application for regular bail is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation.
(iii) The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.
(vi) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
