Allowed

Samson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013Bail Appl./6017/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application by two accused charged with rape and conspiracy, the High Court recognized the delay in complaint filing but noted the investigation was largely completed. Finding no reason to believe the accused would abscond or tamper with evidence, the court granted bail subject to strict reporting, non-tampering, and surety conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with two solvent sureties for Rs.25,000 each, subject to reporting to IO, non-tampering with witnesses, and cancellation of bail on default.

Samson Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/9TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6017 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 695/2012 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(S):

¶8

1. SAMSON, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 32 YEARS,

¶9

KOMBADIYIL, PAZHAYAR MURI,

¶10

EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 502.

¶11

2. VINEETH, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶12

VINEETH BHAVAN, KOIKKALAZHIKATHU,

¶13

PAZHAYAR MURI, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE,

¶14

KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 502.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.HOOD

¶16

SMT.M.ISHA

¶17

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶18

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 502 THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, 682 031.

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶23

- - - - B.A. No. 6017 of 2013

¶24

- - - - Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2013.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 695 of 2012 of East Kallada Police Station who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 359, 363,

¶27

375 376 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with the first accused had committed rape on the wife of the defacto complainant. The petitioners would say that they are totally innocent and the allegations are raised with ulterior motive. It is pointed out that it is extremely doubtful whether there is a marriage between the defacto complainant and the victim. At any rate, they pointed out that they have been in custody from 20.8.2013 onwards and their continued custody is unnecessary.

¶29

B.A.6017/2013.

¶30

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor only pointed out that

¶32

investigation is going on.

¶33

Copy of the complaint has been made available

¶34

for perusal. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶35

Even going by the allegations against the petitioners and the other accused, the last of the incident is alleged to have taken place on 16.8.2012. Even though, according to the complainant, the first accused had been sexually assaulting the victim long before that. The incident involving the petitioners is alleged to have occurred on 31.7.2011. One cannot omit to note that the complaint was filed only on 16.8.2013 and that too by the husband of the victim. A probe into the various allegations and the cause for the delay is not warranted at this point of time. It is also important to notice that the proceedings originated on a private complaint, which is sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The fact remains that the petitioners have

¶36

B.A.6017/2013.

¶37

¶38

been in custody from 20.8.2013 and a good part of the investigation must have been completed. Since no

¶39

apprehension is expressed by the investigating agency that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are likely to abscond, their continued custody appears to be unnecessary.

¶40

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶41

i) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶42

ii) The court concerned may ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts that are sought to be produced at the time of executing the bond.

¶43

iii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. till final report is laid.

¶44

B.A.6017/2013.

¶45

¶46

iv) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶47

v) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the court concerned may take such steps as are available in law.

¶48

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶49

sb.

Samson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samson 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

Rashid.M. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

A.Sudhag Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Majiziya Bhanu Vs State of Kerala