The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The court noted the gravity of the alleged offences and the infant stage of the investigation, concluding that extraordinary jurisdiction could not be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
The bail application was dismissed; the petitioner was not granted bail.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/12TH ASWINA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 4711 of 2013 ()
------------------------------CRIME NO. 339/2013 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
K.ASOK KUMAR, S/O. KUTTAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 41 YEARS, SOORYAMANGALAM VEEDU, PIRAYAMMODU, CHEMKAL, NEYYATTINKARA (EMPLOED AS CASHIER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH).
BY ADVS.SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE
SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SRI. AJITH M.T. SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED
*R2: SMT. PRASANTHA @ SASIKALA,AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. SUSEELA, RESIDING AT MEKKADAKONAM, PLANKALA HOUSE, VEDIVECHAN KOVIL, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY AT SANJEEV NIVAS, MUDAVURPARA, PALLICHAL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/7/2013 IN CRL.M.A.NO.5570/2013 IN B.A.NO.4711/2013
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.PUNCHAKKARY G.REVEENDRAN NAIR SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
O R D E R
The allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The date of offence is 26.10.2012 and the time of incident is at 10.00 a.m..
B.A. No.4711/2013
-2-
B.A. No.4711/2013
-3-
complainant pointed out that even going by the averments in the petition, it is clear that there is something between the petitioner and the victim. Drawing attention to the reply notice produced along with Crl.M.A. 5570/2013, it is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has no consistent case. In reply notice to the notice sent by the victim, he totally denies the incident whereas the petitioner has a different story. The attempt of the petitioner is to wriggle out of the agreement and to deny the payment to the victim.
B.A. No.4711/2013
-4-
the conclusion that the petitioner is totally innocent. The fact remains that there is an agreement entered into by him and the victim whereby he undertook to pay 5 lakhs for the₹ outrageous act committed by him. He would say that it is as a result of the threat and intimidation, he was trapped. It is clear that the reply notice alleged to have been sent by the petitioner in reply to the notice issued by the victim is false. There, he has altogether a different story to say. He totally denies of having any relationship as such with the victim. In fact, he would go to the extent of saying that a blank signed paper was obtained by him and that was misused. It would appear that the petitioner has no consistent case.
Whatever that be, considering the nature of act alleged to have been committed by the accused, the severity of the offence and also the fact that the investigation is at an infant stage preclude this Court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
B.A. No.4711/2013
-5-
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
ds
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
B.A. No.4711/2013
-6-
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2013
O R D E R
On the basis of a complaint laid by the defacto complainant, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376. According to the petitioner, the agreement on the basis of which now strength is drawn by the defacto complainant was entered into under threat, coercion or intimidation and he has not done any such act as alleged nor he is liable to pay any amount.
B.A. No.4711/2013
-7-
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays
for time to produce the necessary documents.
Post after a week.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
ds
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused who is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 451 and 376 IPC despite claims of coercion.
Whether the infant stage of investigation precludes the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction for bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.ASOK KUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
P.BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
