High CourtsSingle Bench

Yadhukrishnan @ Appu vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 April 2023 · Citation: (2023) 04 KL CK 0004

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354A(1)(i), 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3) · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3(a), 4(1), 6(1), 11(iv) · Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2325 Of 2023
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

13 paragraphs · 511 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

This application is filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

2.

The applicant is the accused in Crime No.1625/2022 of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 354 A (1) (i), 363, 376 (2) (n), 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 4 (1) r/w 3 (a), 6 (1) r/w 11 (iv) of the POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Amendment Act.

3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant, who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste, after giving promise of marriage, kidnapped the victim girl aged 14 years, who is a member of scheduled caste during midnight of 30.11.2022, 01.12.2022 and 03.12.2022, took her to some other place and committed rape on her.

4.

I have heard Sri.Basil Chandy Vavachan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.P.Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. Even though, notice has been served to the victim, there is no appearance.

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

6.

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 04.12.2023. The investigation is over and the final report has been filed. A reading of the FIS would show that the applicant and the victim girl were in love. On all the three occasions, the victim went out of her house voluntarily in the midnight along with the applicant and they had consensual sex. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(iii) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(iv) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(v) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.