Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6389/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the accused in a rape and cyber crime case involving IPC Sections 376 and IT Act Sections 66A/67A. The court noted the investigation was practically over and ordered release on bond with two sureties and strict reporting conditions, including an affidavit if no passport exists.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on execution of bond for Rs. 35,000 with two sureties; petitioner to report Sundays 10-11 a.m., surrender passport, and not tamper with evidence.

Anil Kumar 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 V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/10TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6389 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 759/2014 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY):

¶8

ANIL KUMAR AGED 31 YEARS

¶9

S/O.NARAYANAN, THOMBILLIYIL HOUSE NEAR THOOMBILLY TEMPLE, NJACKANAL POST KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.D.JOHNY

¶11

SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ON BEHALF OF SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SHIBU JOSEPH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.K. MOHANAN, J.

¶18

Bail Application No. 6389 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 1^st day of September, 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 759/14 of Thrikkakara Police Station in which the offences involved are under Sections 376, 354, 379, 506 and 509 of IPC and Sections 66A and 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 119 of Kerala Police Act, preferred the above application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C as he is in custody from 16-6-2014 onwards.

¶22

The prosecution case is that after getting the de facto complainant intoxicated, the petitioner had managed to commit rape on her on 5-1-2012 from the house of the petitioner, which situates at Kakkanad, and he had also managed to obtain some naked photographs of the petitioner

¶23

¶24

Bail Application No. 6389 of 2014

¶25

and by way of using them, he had threatened her that if she refuses to have sexual relationship with him, he will disclose those photographs to the media and public. The prosecution further alleges that on the basis of such threat, the petitioner had managed to have sexual relationship with the de facto complainant on several occasions, including at Visakha Lodge at Vazhakkala. Hence, the prosecution alleges that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 379, 506, 509 of IPC and Sections 66A and 67A of IT Act, 2000.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is under custody right from 16-6-2014 onwards and the investigation is practically over and therefore, his further detention is not necessary. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious crime and after giving

¶28

Bail Application No. 6389 of 2014 3

¶29

promise to marry the de facto complainant, she was subjected to sexual intercourse on various occasions and subequently he had withdrawn from the marriage proposal and thereafter the de facto complainant resigned her job but the petitioner again approached the de facto complainant and forcefully entered into sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant and the petitioner had also stolen the valuables of the de facto complainant. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner had taken some obscene photos of the de facto complainant and the same were sent to her brother.

¶30

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

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that right from 16-6-2014 the petitioner is in custody and the further detention of the petitioner is not required. He also submitted that 75 days are already over.

¶32

¶33

Bail Application No. 6389 of 2014

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that though the investigation is practically over but 164 statement of the victim is not recorded so far.

¶35

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the custody of the petitioner is required only for investigation purpose and the same is over and victim in the present case is not a minor. So, according to me, by imposing stringent conditions, this application can be allowed.

¶36

In the result, this Application is allowed and accordingly, there will be a direction to release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the JFCM - I Alwaye, and also on the following other conditions:-

¶37

i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigation Officer in the above crime on all Sundays between 10 a.m. And 11 a.m.

¶38

ii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any,

¶39

¶40

Bail Application No. 6389 of 2014

¶41

before the jurisdictional Magistrate, at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, he will file an affidavit to that effect in the High Court. If the petitioner requires his passport, he can approach the trial court for release of the same and in case such an application is filed, the trial court is directed to consider the same on merit guided by the decision reported in Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 712).

¶42

iv) The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶43

v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not try to tamper the evidence.

¶44

V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE.

¶45

ani/

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zauda Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Clabin @ Vipin Vs State of Kerala

Beefathima Vs State of Kerala

Shameer D.A Vs State of Kerala