Allowed

Rajeev v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar

Kerala HC20 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6252/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail alleging offences under IPC and IT Act. The court imposed conditions including surrender of passport and reporting to the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, surrender of passport, and reporting to Investigating Officer.

Rajeev Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6252 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 586/2014 OF CHITTAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAJEEV, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.KESARI, RAJEEV BHAVAN, MEENKUZHI CHITTAR, KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶10

SRI.S.JUSTUS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINT/STATE:

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

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

¶14

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶17

===========================

¶18

B.A No.6252 of 2014

¶19

============================

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.586/2014 of Chittar Police Station. He apprehends arrest in the above crime and therefore he preffered this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner without disclosing his actual caste and religion offered to marry the de facto complainant, who is aged 23 years, and started living together during which the petitioner has taken photographs of the de facto complainant and the same were posted in the Face Book and subsequently, it is realized that the petitioner is belonging to Scheduled Caste coming under Hindu religion. Thus, according to the prosecution, the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 417, 384, 506(ii), 354(c) and (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

¶24

B.A No.6252 of 2014

¶25

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

¶27

Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the petitioner and the victim was in love which developed right from their school days while they were studying in the V.K.N.M.V Higher Secondary School, Chittar and when the petitioner got employment in Bangalore and the victim got employment in Chennai, the said relationship continued. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the said period the petitioner formally married the victim and they were residing together as husband and wife. So, according to the petitioner, no offence is attracted against the petitioner and the de facto complainant now lodged a complaint against the petitioner as instigated by her parents.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the investigation so far conducted disclose that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were in love and they resided together as husband and wife.

¶30

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Having regard

¶31

B.A No.6252 of 2014

¶32

¶33

to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and especially in the light of the materials produced by the petitioner along with this bail application, it can be seen that there were frequent contact between the petitioner and the victim and the photographs produced along with the bail application shows that the victim is married and was in the company of the petitioner. If that be so, according to me, it is only just and proper to allow this petition however, subject to stringent conditions.

¶34

In the result, this petition is allowed and accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.586/2014 of Chittar Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following other conditions:

¶35

i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above crime on all second Saturdays between 10 a.m and 11 a.m.

¶36

B.A No.6252 of 2014

¶37

¶38

ii) Petitioner is directed to surrender his passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer, at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, file an affidavit to that effect and the Investigating Officer is directed to produce the passport, if he is having the same, or the affidavit as afore mentioned, as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner is free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for the release of the passport as and when required and in case an application is filed in this regard, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders, guided by the decision rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar v State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).

¶39

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses.

¶40

iv) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶43

vdv //True Copy// P.A to judge

Rajeev v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev v. the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jancy Benny Vs State of Kerala

Christin P Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh Vs Nazima Sheikh

Jaison Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.K.P.Shyamala Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Manaf Vs State of Kerala