High CourtsSingle Bench

Rayees V.V.Vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 KL CK 0256

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120(b), 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 201, 323, 341, 342, 354A(1)(i), 354A(2), 354B, 370, 376D, 395, 450, 506 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66E · Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — Section 3(2)(a), 4(2)(a)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 5681 Of 2022
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

14 paragraphs · 486 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioner is the 8th accused in Crime No.272/2022 of Ambalavayal Police Station alleging offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(b), 201, 323, 341, 342, 354A(1)(i) r/w Section 354A(2), 354B, 370, 376D, 395, 450, 506 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4(2)(c) r/w Section 3(2)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3.

According to the prosecution, accused 9 to 11 induced the victim into prostitution and brought her from Karnataka to a Homestay at Wayanad and thereafter on 20.04.2022, accused 1 to 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with dangerous weapons trespassed into the Homestay and committed rape on the victim after threatening her.

4.

Sri.Shanid P., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire allegation as against the petitioner – 8th accused is false and that the incident as alleged had never taken place. It was also submitted that accused 2, 4 to 7 and 9 have already been released on bail from the Sessions Court and therefore the petitioner who stands on the same set of allegations should also be released on bail , since he has been in custody from 09.05.2022.

5.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the specific overt acts as alleged against the petitioner are different from other accused and releasing the petitioner on bail, at this juncture would prejudice the prosecution case.

6.

A perusal of the case diary reveals that prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime. However, since petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2022, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not required in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

7.

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 offence 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.