Dismissed

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2014Bail Appl./1039/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application filed by an accused charged with sexual offences under Section 376 IPC. The court held that the allegations of non-consensual sexual intercourse were sufficient to deny anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to approach the court for regular bail later.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed. Petitioner directed to file regular bail application.

Manoj Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/29TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1039 of 2014 (D)

¶6

CRIME NO. 67/2014 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

MANOJ AGED 35 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, VADAKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ACHAKANAM AREA ANNAKARA, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE :

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

JJJ

¶15

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

B.A. No. 1039 of 2014 (D)

¶17

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2014

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.67/2014 of Vandanmedu Police Station, Idukki District. Offences alleged are under sections 376 and 366 of IPC and section 66(E) of Information Technology Act. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶20

It is alleged that from June, 2013, to 26^th July,

¶21

2013 the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent or against her will from her house and from other places. There is also allegation that

¶22

the accused took photographs of the act of sexual intercourse using his mobile phone. He threatened the complainant that he will circulate or publish the same to other persons and threatening so, he again had sexual intercourse with her.

¶23

B.A. No.1039/2014

¶24

-2-

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actually this woman was missing and so her husband filed a petition complaining that she was missing. Her husband had even stated that the victim was in love with the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that on going through the statement given by the complainant and her husband, it can be seen that the accused, if at all had sexual intercourse with her, it was done with her consent. Hence, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶26

The circumstances detailed earlier are not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. It is for the petitioner to raise all his contentions when he files application for regular bail. This petition is, hence, dismissed.

¶27

Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶28

//True Copy// P.A. to Judge

¶29

jjj

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

K.P.Aneeshkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan C.K Vs State of Kerala

Davis Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumol Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Aravinthakshan Nair Vs State of Kerala