Allowed

Vimal v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2674/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. charged with offences under Sections 376, 406, and 420 IPC. The court held the case fit for anticipatory bail and granted it subject to specific conditions regarding bond, reporting, and contact with the victim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum.

Vimal Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/26TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2674 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1771/2013 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VIMAL, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS, KIZHAKKE ARACKAL VEEDU, CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SMT.S.INDU.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶16

B.A. No. 2674 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 1771/2013 of Alappuzha North Police Station which has been registered for the offences under Sections 376, 406 and 420 I.P.C.

¶21

The allegation against him is that though he did not have the intention to marry the de facto-complainant, he made such a promise which made her give consent to have sexual intercourse with her. He had sexual intercourse with her from 2011 to 2013 at her residence. Now, he has refused to marry her. He has thus committed the offences under Sections 376, 406 and 420 I.P.C., according to the prosecution.

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

The de facto-complainant admittedly had sexual intercourse with the petitioner during her majority only. The incident happened at her residence. It is doubtful whether

¶24

B.A. No. 2674 /2014

¶25

¶26

Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. are attracted.

¶27

Having regard to these facts, I am of the view that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶28

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed.

¶29

The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶30

He shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10 am and 11 am on every Friday for three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶31

He shall not contact or communicate with the victim girl or her relatives. Nor shall he intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶32

This order is not applicable if the petitioners choose surrender before the Magistrate concerned and in such case the

¶33

B.A. No. 2674 /2014

¶34

¶35

learned Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance

¶36

with the law.

¶37

¶38

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

P.A. TO JUDGE

Vimal v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal v. the 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

Noushad V.B. Vs State of Kerala

Genesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Hassan Kannu Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Athul.P.Raj Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Nishad Vs State of Kerala