High CourtsSingle Bench

Akhil Ajay vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 12 May 2023 · Citation: (2023) 05 KL CK 0073

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.G. Ajithkumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354, 354A(1)(i), 376, 376(ii)(n)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 3506 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

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

15 paragraphs · 488 words

P.G. Ajithkumar, J

1.

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.602 of 2023 of Mundakayam Police Station. He allegedly had committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), 376, 376(ii)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that during the month of July 2020, the petitioner established with the defacto complainant an online contact through facebook. He misusing that opportunity and by giving a false promise that he would marry the defacto complainant brought her to a hotel at Mundakkayam where he had sexual intercourse with her.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he has been implicated in the crime. He is innocent. The investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably and there is no reason or justification for his further detention. Petitioner would also contend that since 2019 he had been in a romantic relationship with the defacto complainant but it fell through in the year 2021. Whatever he did was only on mutual consent. He maintained that the defacto complainant foisted the case after a long delay without any basis.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that considering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility of interfering with the investigation by the petitioner in the event of his release on bail, this petition deserves only to be dismissed.

7.

No doubt, the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. It is seen that investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably. Considering the aforesaid aspects and also the nature of the offence, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner pending investigation and trial is unnecessary. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

8.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for until filing the final report;

(iii) During the period of bail, petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence.

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned Magistrate, and if he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit stating that fact.

(v) The petitioner shall not enter the territorial limits of jurisdictional court till filing of the final report.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.