High CourtsSingle Bench

ANU DAS vs STATE OF KERALA & ANR

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 29 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 KL CK 0090

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-439>Section 439</a> - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-376>Section 376</a>, <a href=1767-354>S
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
361 of 2018

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

29 paragraphs · 548 words
1.

This petition is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.2099/2017 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under sections 354,

506(i) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The victim in the instant case is a girl aged 18 years and is doing her first year degree course. According to the victim, the petitioner herein is her

neighbour. Both the families were pretty close to each other. The allegation is that on 01.12.2017, the petitioner offered the victim a lift in his car

and after showing some obscene videos subjected her to sexual assault. It is further alleged that on 19.12.2017 at about 10.30 PM, while the

victim was standing in the terrace of her house, the petitioner came there stealthily and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a married man and due to a minor dispute between the two

families, false allegations are now levelled. The victim had refused medical examination by a doctor when she was taken for examination. This

would make her version suspect is the submission of the learned counsel. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from

30.12.2017 and prays for his release.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel.

6.

I have considered the submissions and have gone through the case diary. It appears that after furnishing the F.I. Statement on 29.12.2017, the

victim was examined by Dr. Hridya Bhaskar at the Women and Child Hospital at Thycaud and as is evidenced by Annexure-2 report, the victim

refused from being examined for sexual assault. The Doctor has reported that no opinion can be given as the examination was not done. The

advantage, in the facts and circumstances, will have to be extended to the petitioner who has been in custody from 30.12.2017. Further more, the

investigation also has progressed considerably.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

A) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

B) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is

filed, whichever is earlier.

C) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. He shall not make any attempt to

contact the victim or her family members.

D) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file affidavit to that effect within five days

of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage.

E) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any,

and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.