Dismissed

N.S.Vinodh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2012Bail Appl./3961/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the bail application of a police officer accused of rape and cheating under IPC and the SC/ST Act. The court declined anticipatory bail, directing surrender to the police to seek bail post-interrogation through a Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail dismissed. Petitioner directed to surrender to police/IO; subsequent bail application to be disposed by Magistrate after case diary perusal.

N.S.Vinodh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2012/20TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3961 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO. 354/2012 OF THE KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

N.S.VINODH KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.K.P.NANU, VALIYA PURAYIL HOUSE EDAKKULAM AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SHIBU JOSEPH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

SCL.

¶15

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 3961 OF 2012

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.354/2012 of Koyilandy Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under sections 376 and 420 of IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶21

The complainant woman alleges that she was in love with the petitioner for a few years and he made a false promise of marriage and by making such promise, he had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. Later, she realised that the petitioner has a legally wedded wife and so

¶22

he stated that he cannot marry the complainant. The further allegation is that the petitioner had made the complainant to avail a loan of ` 75,000/- from the SC/ST Development Corporation. But the entire amount was

¶23

B.A.No.3961/2012

¶24

-2-

¶25

appropriated by the petitioner. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner has also cheated her. The request for anticipatory bail was turn down by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶26

The petitioner is a police man. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the complainant are residing in the very same locality and so the complainant was aware of the fact that the accused is a married man and so her contention that the accused had promised her to marry and thus obtained her consent for sexual intercourse is highly improbable. It is further contended that the petitioner had close acquaintance with the complainant's father. Because of that acquaintance, complainant's father after obtaining the petitioner's salary certificate, obtained loan in the name of the complainant from the SC/ST Development Corporation and since the salary certificate was not returned, the petitioner had sent a lawyer notice to the complainant on 21.10.2011. It is long thereafter this complaint was filed alleging that the

¶27

B.A.No.3961/2012

¶28

-3-

¶29

petitioner had raped her.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail, especially, in view of the fact that the offence was committed against a member of a Scheduled Caste. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the complainant is a member of scheduled caste, it is not discernible from the complaint that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on the ground that the complainant is a member of scheduled caste or that the petitioner exploited the complainant misusing his position or because she is a member of scheduled caste. Annexure A2 is the copy of the notice sent by the petitioner on 21.10.2011. The complaint was filed a few months thereafter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Doctor, who examined the complainant also does not say anything to support the case of the prosecution that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant. But the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the plea that

¶31

B.A.No.3961/2012

¶32

-4-

¶33

the accused did not have sexual intercourse with the complainant cannot be accepted at this stage. However only for the purpose of considering the bail application, it can be said that the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act are not applicable.

¶34

Considering all the aspects, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence it is dismissed.

¶35

If the petitioner surrenders before the Police/Investigating Officer, after interrogation the petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate and if the petitioner applies for bail the learned Magistrate will dispose of the same in accordance with law, but after hearing the learned APP as well and also after perusal of the case diary, if so required and also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶36

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶37

N.S.Vinodh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.S.Vinodh Kumar 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

Binoy Vs State of Kerala

Mahendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police Kunnamangalam

Vinosh Vs State of Kerala

K.Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Ridhul B.R. Vs State of Kerala

Sandhya K Vs State of Kerala