High CourtsSingle Bench

XXXXXXXXXX vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 25 November 2022 · Citation: (2022) 11 KL CK 0303

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, 376(2)(n), 406, 420, 506(i)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 8474 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 · 508 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.1235/2022 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 406, 420, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

According to the prosecution, the accused after procuring consent for sexual intercourse, with a promise to marry, raped the victim, by indulging in a physical relationship and thereafter backing out of the marriage and also obtained an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by deceit and failed to return the said amount, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegations are false and, even if the allegations are assumed to be true, still the same would only reveal a consensual relationship. It was further submitted that, out of Rs.7,50,000/- borrowed from the victim, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has already been returned and due to the financial difficulty, petitioner had sought a breathing time to repay the amount. According to the Counsel, failure to return the entire amount borrowed, is actually the reason for the false complaint levelled against the petitioner. Learned Counsel also submitted that considering the period of detention already undergone, and the age of the victim, which is 40 years, further detention of the petitioner, ought not to be permitted.

5.

Sri.K.A.Noushad, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the prosecution allegations are serious in nature, and that the investigation is still continuing, and therefore, petitioner ought not be released on bail.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the remand report produced along with the bail application.

7.

The victim is aged 40 years and is a divorcee, while the petitioner is aged 34. The allegations levelled against the petitioner though serious in nature, considering the period of detention already undergone, from 14.10.2022, I am of the view that the further detention is not essential, especially since the investigation has almost reached the final stages.

Accordingly, 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 similar offences, while he is on bail.

(d) 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.