High CourtsSingle Bench

Jomon vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 29 September 2021 · Citation: (2021) 09 KL CK 0205

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 341, 365, 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 7135 Of 2021
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

13 paragraphs · 516 words

M.R.Anitha, J

1.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1440/2021 of Pettah Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, registered under Section 376(2) of IPC.

2.

It is alleged that on 15.7.2021 at about 02.30 p.m. the petitioner with an intention to have sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant, asked her to come to Pettah, stating that the apartment has to be cleaned. He waited for her at Pettah and hired an autoricksahw and brought the victim to his apartment in Artech Deepam Flat No.3C. Then he told her that she is not called for cleaning purposes, and stated his intention to have sex with her. Thereafter, in spite of her resistance, he committed rape up on her. Thereby, accused committed the offence aforementioned.

3.

The Sub Inspector of Police filed report along with copy of the FIR, FIS and Medical records etc. In the report filed by the Sub Inspector, it has been stated that the presence of the petitioner in the locality will be a threat to the defacto complainant and family and there is chances of tampering the evidence also. The learned Public Prosecutor also raised strong objection in considering the bail application.

4.

The main contention to the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested on 15.7.2021 and he is a senior citizen aged above 70. The records in this case would go to show that the petitioner, is more than 70 years and he had been under confinement from 15.7.2021 onwards. The petitioner is not involved in any other crime. So, taking into account, the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that continued confinement of the petitioner is not necessary.

Hence, I am of the view that the bail application filed by the petitioner can be considered on stringent conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.75.000/- (Rupees seventy five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the SHO concerned for on all Mondays between 9.00 a.m and 10.00 a.m for a period of three months from the date of his release or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(iii) The petitioner shall surrender his original passport before the court concerned. If he is not having a passport, he shall file an affidavit regarding the same before the court, within a week for his release on bail.

(iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(v) Petitioner shall not enter into the Village where the victim and family resides.

(vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.