Allowed

T.K.Vinu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Feb 2008Bail Appl./973/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused of indecent assault, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Conditions included surrender, executing a bond, periodic interrogation, and restricted movement from the local jurisdiction during the investigation period.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions regarding surrender, bond execution, interrogation availability, and restriction of movement from the Ambalathara police station jurisdiction.

T.K.Vinu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 973 of 2008()

¶6

---------------------------CRIME NO. 14/08 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER : ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

T.K. VINU, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, NELLIKKOD HOUSE, PODAVADKKAM BELUR VILLAGE, KASARGODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R. BASANT, J.

¶17

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, an

¶20

unmarried person, faces the allegation that he had trespassed into the house of a married woman with children and had allegedly indecently assaulted her. This is the second of such allegation that is being raised against the petitioner. An earlier crime has been registered as Crime No.141 of 2007, in which identical allegations of indecent assault were raised by the same complainant against the petitioner. The incident in this case occurred on 1.2.2008. The complaint was made on 2.2.08. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner faces allegations under Sections 452 and 354 I.P.C. He apprehends imminent arrest.

¶21

The petitioner has a totally different story to advance. According to him there was some intimacy between the petitioner

¶22

¶23

B.A.No. 973 of 2008

¶24

and the said lady. The lady has been wanting to continue the relationship, though the petitioner, an eligible bachelor, wants to walk out of that relationship. The petitioner's marriage is being contemplated. The lady wants to scuttle the prospects of such marriage. That is why such false allegations are being raised against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in possession of documents to show that the defacto complainant has been contacting the petitioner very frequently using her telephone. Call details of the BSNL will bear ample testimony for this indisputable truth. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall have nothing to do with the woman at all. Appropriate conditions may be imposed, but the petitioner may be saved of the trauma of vexatious arrest and detention. The whole purpose appears to be to some how spoil the chance of getting the petitioner married, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Prosecutor was requested to place the case diaries

¶26

in both the crimes. I have perused the same. I have also perused the document which is described as the one showing the calla details of the

¶27

B.A.No. 973 of 2008

¶28

¶29

telephone of the defacto complain which allegedly shows that on a number of occasions, she had called the petitioner herein.

¶30

At this early stage of investigation I shall not embark on any detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am persuaded to agree that appropriate directions, subject to appropriate conditions, can be issued under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

In the result: (1) This application is allowed.

¶32

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶33

(a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 4.3.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶34

B.A.No. 973 of 2008

¶35

¶36

(b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 5.2.2008 and 6.3.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter he shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶37

© The petitioner shall not during the said period of two months enter the jurisdiction of Ambalathara police station without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate, except for the purpose of complying with the conditions referred above.

¶38

(d) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 4.3.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law.

¶39

(e) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 4.3.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail

¶40

B.A.No. 973 of 2008

¶41

¶42

on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any surety

¶43

undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 4.3.2008.

¶44

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶45

T.K.Vinu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Vinu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.D.Davis and Another Vs State and Another

Kabeer & Another Vs State of Kerala

Ajith.R.S. Vs State of Kerala

Raveesh Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Solomon Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by Public Prosecutor

Uma Vs State of Kerala