Dr.Sree Hari.N. vs State Of Kerala

C.Jayachandran, J

In the instant application for regular bail, petitioner is a sole accused in Crime No.503/2022 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. The offence alleged is one under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution would allege that the petitioner/accused, in order to satisfy his lust, gave the defacto complainant a false promise to marry. Under the spell of such promise, the defacto complainant was taken to Sinna Dorai’s, Bungalow at Valpara and was subjected to rape. Thereafter, in February, 2020, the defacto complainant was taken by the petitioner to Club Mahindra Resort at Coorg, where also the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant. Again on 15.03.2020, the offence was repeated at Sui Palace at Chittoor Road, Ernakulam. Further, the petitioner committed rape on the defacto complainant from April, 2021 onwards on several occasions at Pulikal Avenue Apartments, Kathrikadavu, thus committing the offence enumerated above.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. This application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is inclined to allow this Bail Application and to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This Court takes stock of the fact that the petitioner has been in the judicial custody for the past 28 days, he having been arrested and remanded to custody on 19.04.2022. It is noticed that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are medical professionals, having specialization in Orthopedics and that both suffers from a broken marriage. Proceedings for divorce of the petitioner, as also, the defacto complainant were either complete, or nearing completion. Going by the prosecution allegations, the defacto complainant was allegedly raped on different occasions at various places, from which it could reasonably be deciphered at there was consent, prima facie. The solicitory question which surfaces is whether such consent is vitiated by the alleged promise to marry, which question to be gone into by the trial Court, after adducing evidence. The petitioner has been the custody for the past 28 days, thus serving the purpose of interrogation adequately. This Court, in the afore referred circumstances, finds that no useful purpose is going to be served by incarcerating the petitioner any more.

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him in writing to do so.

(ii) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

(iii) He shall not indulge himself in any other offence while on bail.

(iv) He shall not leave India, except with prior permission of the trial court.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to approach the trial Court for cancellation of the bail.