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
16 paragraphs · 477 wordsBechu Kurian Thomas, J
This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.996 of 2022 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code,1860.
According to the prosecution, the accused had, from 2018 December onwards till 15-10-2022, indulged in a physical relationship with the victim after obtaining consent with the promise of marriage and thereafter backed out of the promise and thereby committed the offences alleged.
Sri. Prabhu K.N., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution case is false and that the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the victim herself is a married lady and in a subsisting relationship which itself makes it impossible to believe that consent to sexual intercourse was obtained with a promise of marriage. It was also submitted that petitioner was arrested on 19-11-2022 and has been in custody since then.
Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Persecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious and that petitioner is involved in 29 other criminal cases and therefore releasing him on bail would cause prejudice to the investigation, since there is every chance that he may intimidate and influences the witnesses
I have considered the rival contentions.
The learned Public Persecutor though pointed out the existence of 29 criminal cases, and learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in none of those cases, petitioner was found guilty and therefore those cases cannot be treated as criminal antecedents for the purpose of denying the bail.
Even though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, taking note of the period of detention already undergone and the subsisting marriage of the victim, I am of the view that further detention is not essential.
In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
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.
