Allowed

Prajeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1880/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by the 1st accused in a rape and debauchery case involving a minor. The court allowed bail subject to strict conditions including a bond, reporting, passport surrender, and restrictions on leaving the state or influencing witnesses, noting the investigation was largely complete and no likelihood of absconding was found.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions including reporting to the IO, surrendering passport, and not leaving Kerala.

Prajeesh Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2013/1ST CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1880 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 590/2012 OF CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :

¶8

PRAJEESH M., AGED 36 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, MUNDOOR HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMURI P.O. KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE, CHEVAYUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.1880 OF 2013

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2013.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is 1^st accused in Crime No.590/2012 of Chevayur Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the ITP Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape on a minor girl.

¶20

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is pointed out that he has been implicated in several cases without any basis. At any rate, according to him, he has been in custody from 02.02.2013 and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the offences attributed to the petitioner are of serious nature and the investigation is going on.

¶22

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶23

B.A. No.1880/2013 2

¶24

the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent may not be acceptable. It is seen that the petitioner is made accused in several cases of similar nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in fact he has been in custody from 28.10.2012 and in this case, his formal arrest was recorded on 02.02.2013. A good part of the investigation must have been completed.

¶25

Since no apprehension is expressed by the investigating agency that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, his continued custody appears to be unnecessary. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶26

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned.

¶27

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by him.

¶28

iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating

¶29

B.A. No.1880/2013

¶30

¶31

Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders.

¶32

iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned and if does not possess a valid passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the Magistrate Court concerned.

¶33

v) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned.

¶34

vi) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶35

vii) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶36

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶37

smp

Prajeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajeesh 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

Rajaneesh Vs State of Kerala

Salim B.A. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.V. Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar.P Vs State of Kerala

K.Sudhana Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Naisam Vs State of Kerala