High CourtsSingle Bench

XXXXXXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 30 June 2022 · Citation: (2022) 06 KL CK 0362

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(1), 376(2)(n), 450
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 4827 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 · 468 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

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

2.

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.256 of 2022 of Muhamma Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging offences under Sections 450, 376(1) & (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

The prosecution case is that, on 07.04.2022 the daughter of the defacto complainant went missing from their home and later she was located at Goa. While taking her statement, it was realized that she was subjected to sexual assault in 2017 and sexual intercourse with the accused on 05.12.2021 and again on 08.04.2022, and hence the accused committed the offences alleged against him.

4.

Sri.A.Abdul Jaleel, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution case is false and that petitioner and the victim are in love, and that they have even decided to get married. According to the learned counsel, the incident alleged to have occurred in the year 2017 is totally false, for which a second crime has already been registered as Crime No.272 of 2022 while the allegations constituting Crime No.256 of 2022 which relates to this bail application are instances allegedly occurred after she became a major. The learned counsel further pointed out that an affidavit has been filed by the defacto complainant stating that the attempt of the police is to destroy their relationship and that the defacto complainant has no grievance against the petitioner.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail.

6.

A perusal of the case diary reveals that prima facie there are materials on record to connect the petitioner with the crime. However, petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 21.4.2022 and in view of the nature of the offences alleged, and the affidavit of the victim I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the petitioner is required. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his 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.

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

(iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses;

(iv) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

(v) 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.