High CourtsSingle Bench

XXXXXXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 October 2022 · Citation: (2022) 10 KL CK 0219

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 7911 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

15 paragraphs · 492 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 sole accused in Crime No.846/2022 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 376(2)(f) and Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. 1860.

3.

According to the prosecution, the victim, who is a married woman of 35 years was subjected to rape on several days in September 2020 when her husband was afflicted with Covid 19. Thereafter, in November 2021, when the victim’s husband was admitted to a hospital and while he was kept in a Ventilator, the accused forced the victim to indulge in a sexual relationship after threatening to publish her videographs and photographs taken earlier and later when the victim became pregnant, he threatened that the child belongs to him and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.T.Madhu, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that the offence of rape is alleged with an ulterior purpose. It was further submitted that even going by the prosecution case, the victim is a married woman and the petitioner being the first cousin of her husband would have at the most, indulged in a consensual relationship. It was also pointed out that petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2022 and has been in custody since then and since interrogation is practically over, no purpose would be achieved by continuing the detention.

5.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious and that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may even threaten the witnesses.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the statement of the victim.

7.

Even though the allegations are serious in nature, considering the period of detention already undergone, and the nature of allegations, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail on conditions.

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

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing 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 defacto complainant or her family members.

(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(f) 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.