High CourtsSingle Bench

Jomy Jose vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 4 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 KL CK 0047

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 323, 354, 376, 392, 457
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1668 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

27 paragraphs · 560 words
1.

The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No. 1405 of 2020 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 457, 323, 354, 376 and 392 of Indian Penal Code, has filed this application for his release on bail. He has been in

custody since 17.11.2020.

2.

The prosecution case is that on 17.11.2020 at about 16 Hrs. the petitioner trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant by breaking

open the front door and snatched away her gold chain worth Rs.60,000/-. He has also committed rape on her.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged only 24 years and he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against

him. In fact the defacto complainant is an aged lady residing all alone. Her daughter, who is supposed to look after her, had neglected her totally and in

order to escape from her responsibility, she had preferred a false complaint against this petitioner, who is her neighbour. It is also submitted that the

petitioner has no criminal antecedents. But he is languishing in jail for the last more than three months. Hence this application.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application but submitted that the investigation of the case is over and charge sheet has been filed

before the court concerned.

5.

The petitioner is aged only 24 years and the defacto complainant is a lady aged 85 years. She was residing all alone at her residence though her

relatives are residing nearby. The CD file has been produced by the prosecution but, the medical records available will not prima facie reveal that she

was subjected to rape as alleged by the prosecution. Of course, she had sustained some minor injuries as she was attacked by the petitioner. The

injuries might have happened while the petitioner had resisted when he attempted to snatch away her gold chain. Of-course the offences alleged

against this petitioner are grave and serious in nature, but, the investigation of the case is over and charge sheet has been filed. Prosecution has no

case that he has criminal background or he is engaged in criminal activities. He is aged only 24 years. Lack of medical evidence at this stage to

support the case of rape is also a ground to lean in favour of the petitioner to hold that he can be released on bail. Therefore, this application is allowed

subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the

like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner, preferably his mother or

father.

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.