This bail application was dismissed on the date of admission. The High Court refused to enlarge the petitioner, an accused in a rape case, on bail due to his prior failure to comply with bail conditions and failure to surrender as required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MAY 2012/28TH VAISAKHA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 2755 of 2012 ()
CRIME NO.360/2002 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED ISMAIL P.M., S/O.P.M. MOIDEEN KUTTY HAJI, AYSHA MANZIL THERUVATH, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH, SMT.HEMALATHA.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.ROY THOMAS.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
B.A. No.2755 OF 2012
Dated this the 18th day of May, 2012
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in crime No.360 of 2012 of Kasaragod Police Station, now pending before the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-III) as S.C.275 of 2012. The said crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 26.4.2002, at about 8.30 a.m, he took the minor daughter of the defacto complainant, then aged 16 years,, promising to marry her with an intention to exploit her sexually and then, committed rape on her. At the crime stage, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. However, he failed to comply with the conditions of bail. Later, coercive steps were initiated against his sureties. The petitioner surrendered before the trial court on 16.4.2012 and sought for fresh bail. On account of the conduct of the petitioner, it cannot be presumed that he would
B.A No.2755/12
2
make himself available for facing trial in case he is enlarged on bail at this stage. Considering the serious nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, I do not think it is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, at the appropriate stage, he will be at liberty to move the trial court for bail.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)
spc/
B.A No.2755/12
3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
B.A No.2755/12 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an accused who failed to comply with prior bail conditions and committed fraud by not surrendering, is entitled to bail at this stage.
Muhammed Ismail P.M.
State of Kerala
C. T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
