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
14 paragraphs · 496 wordsBechu Kurian Thomas, J
This is an application seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.522/2022 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The offenses alleged against him are under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The prosecution case is that petitioner and the victim, a girl of sixteen years, were in love and he brought her to his house on 18.02.2009 and committed rape on her. After the final report was filed, petitioner absconded and later petitioner was arrested in another case and produced under a production warrant. The case before the Sessions Court was refiled as S.C.No.522/2022.Thus the petitioner was arrested on 05.04.2022 and has been in custody since then.
Shri.Mahesh V.Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though petitioner was appearing before the trial Court regularly, due to a communication gap with the Advocate, the postings of the case were not intimated to him. As a result, petitioner could not appear before the Court and hence a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. It was also contended that the case was, in fact, settled long ago and the victim had already married and that the petitioner is willing to appear before the trial Court without any neglect and that he is willing to abide by any conditions.
Smt.Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of absconding and is involved in other crimes as well. It was also submitted that there is no security that petitioner will appear for trial and in such circumstances, the Court ought not to release the petitioner on bail.
Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 05.04.2022. In view of the nature of the offences alleged, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the petitioner is required especially since the trial is about to commence. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects, I allow this application on the following conditions:
i) 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.
ii) One of the sureties shall be an immediate relative of the petitioner.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial and shall appear before the trial Court on every posting date without fail.
iv) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while he is on bail.
v) The petitioner shall not leave the Country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.
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, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
