High CourtsSingle Bench

Rekha vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 KL CK 0257

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 149, 323, 341, 363, 376, 452 · Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 75
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 5733 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 · 517 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.

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.686/2022 of the Palakkad Town South Police Station, Palakkad, alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 452 and 363 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

3.

The prosecution case is that on 10.07.2022, accused 1 to 9 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and kidnapped a minor girl of 10 years. The minor girl is a victim in a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and she is alleged to have been kidnapped for instigating her to turn hostile in the above mentioned rape case and thereby, the accused committed the offences alleged against them.

4.

Shri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the entire prosecution case is false and that there was no kidnapping as alleged. It was also stated that petitioners had not committed any house trespass and their entry into the house cannot be treated as a criminal trespass, as contemplated under law. It was further submitted that, in any event, the petitioners have been in custody since 10.07.2022 and therefore, their continued detention is not warranted.

5.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the attempt of the petitioners was to compel the victim to turn hostile in a prosecution for a rape case and therefore, releasing the petitioners would cause prejudice not only in this case but also even in another case.

6.

A perusal of the case diary reveals that prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioners with the crime. However, since petitioners were remanded to judicial  custody on 10.07.2022, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioners is not required in the circumstances of the case, more so since the investigation is over and the final report has already been filed. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

7.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioners shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioners shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence or contact the victim.

(d) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

(e) Petitioners shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

8.

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.