Allowed

Biju @ Appu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2013Bail Appl./6502/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding an accusation of rape, the High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and granted bail with specific conditions, observing discrepancies in the First Information Report.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on Rs. 15,000 bond with two sureties, directing surrender before 11.10.2013 and appearance before Investigating Officer every Wednesday.

Biju @ Appu 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

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/12TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6502 of 2013 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 1304/2013 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

BIJU @ APPU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, MODUKATTIL, KANALAMPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SMT.M.A.SHEEBA, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A. No. 6502 of 2013

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 04^th day of October, 2013

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner stands accused of having committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that from 23.08.2013 to 28.08.2013 defacto complainant has been repeatedly ravished by the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and made with ulterior motive. According to him, the victim in this case was at loggerheads with her husband and she was thrown out of from her matrimonial home. At her behest and at her request and being a common family friend, the petitioner procured a flat for her. There, she resided for sometime. On a day when she get some trouble with the flat, he was summoned. Ultimately, it is stated that he left the victim in her house.

¶22

B.A. No. 6502/2013

¶23

-2-

¶24

The petitioner would say that the husband of the victim was suspicious about her conduct with the petitioner and on his instance, a complaint has been laid. He denies that he has committed any such act as alleged and says that

¶25

he has been implicated only to satisfy the claim of her husband that unless she files a complaint against the petitioner, he would not believe her chastity.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the investigation is going on.

¶27

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, there seems to be considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the First Information Statement which makes a strange reading, especially, the closing portion. There seems to be some force in the grievance voiced by the petitioner.

¶28

B.A. No. 6502/2013

¶29

-3-

¶30

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of allegations against the petitioner and the manner in which the offence was committed, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

The petition is allowed as follows:

¶32

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 11.10. 2013 , who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of `15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶33

The court shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before

¶34

B.A. No. 6502/2013

¶35

-4-

¶36

granting bail.

¶37

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9.00 am to 10.00 am until further orders.

¶38

1. The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶39

1. If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶42

¶43

//True Copy//

¶44

P.A. To Judge

Biju @ Appu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju @ Appu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sherin Kasim Vs State of Kerala

Anburaj Vs State of Kerala

Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala

K.Asok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Shibu @ Shibu David Abraham Vs the C.I. of Police, Kozhencherry

Yohannan Mathew @ Jomon Vs State of Kerala