Dismissed

Anilkumar @ Kuttan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6841/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a bail application lodged by an accused in a criminal trial alleging IPC 376 and 506 offenses. The court held that the offense was attracted under section 376 IPC following sexual intercourse after a promise of marriage, even if victim consented, noting the investigation was still ongoing.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed as there is no merit in the petition.

Anilkumar @ Kuttan Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/1ST ASWINA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6841 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 843/2014 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANILKUMAR @ KUTTAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. MANIYAN, CHENADU MELEPUTHEN VEEDU, KUNNANADU, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP.

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE 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 23-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶16

B.A.No.6841 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2014.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner was arrested on 14.8.2014 and as he is continuing in custody connected with Crime No.843/14 of Vilappilsala Police Station, he preferred this application for regular bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner offered to marry the victim and had sexual intercourse with her from 15.6.2014 onwards on various occasions and thereafter he had withdrawn from the proposal and thus according to the prosecution, he had committed the offence punishable under sections 376 and 506(i) of IPC.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was working abroad and

¶24

B.A.No.6841 of 2014

¶25

¶26

infact the marriage between the petitioner and the victim was arranged, but however the petitioner and his parents came to know that the victim had another affair and therefore they withdrawn from the proposal. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that after the arrest of the petitioner, 51 days are over and therefore the further detention is not necessary. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim even in the house of the victim which was on the basis of the promise from the part of the petitioner to marry her and finally he had withdrawn from the said promise and thereafter she was threatened also. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that, as the investigation is going on, on the basis of the registration of the crime on 6.8.2014, the release of the petitioner will adversely affect the investigation.

¶27

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

¶28

B.A.No.6841 of 2014

¶29

¶30

Public Prosecutor.

¶31

As per the allegation against the petitioner, he had sexual intercourse with the victim, who is a major, after promising her to marry and even if it is supposed that the victim was consented for such sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that the offence is not attracted against the petitioner under section 376 of IPC. It is also relevant to note that, after the registration of the crime on 6.8.2014, the Police is at the threshold of the investigation and the arrest of the petitioner was recorded only on 14.8.2014 and therefore, according to me, this Court will not be justified in granting bail to the petitioner.

¶32

In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.

¶34

ami/

¶35

//True copy//

¶36

P.A.to Judge

Anilkumar @ Kuttan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar @ Kuttan 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

Shyju Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar T.V Vs State of Kerala

Beena Raj @ Beenakumari Vs State of Kerala

Johnson @ Karette Johny Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala

Joy J Vs State of Kerala