Allowed

Joy @ Vinod v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2010Bail Appl./3300/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the petitioner, Joy @ Vinod, charged with rape. The court was satisfied that the petitioner could be released on bail upon executing a bond with sureties and agreeing to specific conditions regarding police reporting and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties on specified conditions.

Joy @ Vinod Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶2

MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶3

Bail Appl..No. 3300 of 2010() ----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.2943/2010 .................... (CRIME NO.40/2010 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------JOY @ VINOD,S/O.NELSON,AGED 30 YEARS, BROTHERS BHAVAN,ARUVIYODE,KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶4

BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI

¶5

RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶6

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶7

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

K.HEMA, J

¶9

B.A No.3300 OF 2010

¶10

Dated this the 14^th day of June 2010

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This petition is for bail.

¶13

The alleged offence is under Section 376 of IPC.

¶14

According to prosecution, petitioner and de facto complainant are neighbours and they are having close acquaintance with each other. Petitioner committed rape on de facto complainant on 13/11/2009 and earlier days. She became pregnant. But petitioner refused to admit the responsibility.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was arrested on 21/04/2010 and he is in custody for the past 55 days. He also submitted that petitioner is prepared to marry de facto complainant and also to maintain the child provided, if DNA test proves the paternity. Petitioner is prepared to undergo DNA test, it is submitted. These submissions are recorded.

¶16

This petition is not opposed. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence the following order is passed:

¶17

Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on the following

B.A No.3300 OF 2010

conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 A.M and 1 P.M.

¶22

(ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with any evidence.

¶23

(iii) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of the police station, within which the crime is registered, except for compliance of condition No.(i).

¶24

Petition is allowed.

¶25

K.HEMA JUDGE

¶26

vdv

Joy @ Vinod v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy @ Vinod 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

Samdeep Varghese Vs State of Kerala and Others

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan & Another Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjikuzhy

Balakrishna Bhat Vs the S.H.O. Varkala Police Station

Samad Vs State

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala