Allowed

Balamurugan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2014Bail Appl./778/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused of rape under Section 376 IPC. He must surrender within ten days, execute a bond, make a cash deposit towards the complainant and child, and comply with strict conditions including periodic appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail upon surrendering within ten days, executing bond with sureties, depositing Rs.50,000/-, and adhering to specified conditions.

Balamurugan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/16TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 778 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.45/2013 OF MARAYUR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/SO FAR NOT ARRAYED AS ACCUSED :

¶8

BALAMURUGAN

¶9

S/O.JYOTHI, GRIHANATHAPURAM KARA KANTHALLUR PANCHAYATH, DEVIKULAM TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT /STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685506.

¶14

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARAYUR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685586.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

The “Crime No.45/2013 of Marayur Police Station” shown in the cause title of final order dated 07.03.2014 in B.A. No.778/2014 is corrected and substituted as “Crime No.45/2014 of Marayur Police Station” as per the order dated 18.03.2014 in Crl.MA 2486/2014 in BA No.778/2014.

¶18

JJJ

¶19

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

B.A. No. 778 of 2014

¶21

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2014

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.45 of 2013 of Marayur Police Station, Idukki District. The offence alleged is under section 376 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶24

The complainant woman was earlier married to another person. He was having some ailments. Though there was no legal divorce, it seems she was not staying with that person. Thereafter, according to the complainant, she developed intimacy with the accused/petitioner herein. He promised that he will marry her and by making her to believe so, he had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. Ultimately she became pregnant and thereafter delivered a child. The petitioner resiled from the promise.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶26

B.A. No. 778/2014

¶27

-2-

¶28

that, in fact, in the presence of his father and sister an agreement was entered into and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/was paid to the complainant. But the prosecution would say that the accused had obtained gold ornaments weighing 4¾ sovereigns and another sum of Rs.10,000/- and it was in lieu of the same the accused had paid some amount and believing it to be so, she had signed the agreement. It was further contended that she did not agree that she will not proceed further with the criminal complaint she had lodged against the petitioner.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegations made in the complainant are accepted, it can only be said that the accused committed cheating but it cannot be said that he committed offence under section 376 of IPC. The prosecution contends that consent obtained by inducement or false promise also would attract offence of rape.

¶30

B.A. No. 778/2014

¶31

-3-

¶32

Considering all the aspects the following directions

¶33

are issued:

¶34

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate will, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioner but on the following conditions:

¶35

a. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶36

B.A. No. 778/2014

¶37

-4-

¶38

b. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶39

c. The petitioner shall surrender his original passport before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶40

d. The petitioner will also file an affidavit that he will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that he will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the

¶41

B.A. No. 778/2014

¶42

-5-

¶43

evidence.

¶44

e. The petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶45

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶46

g. The petitioner shall make a cash deposit of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) before the learned Magistrate. (This is not in lieu of the bond but it is only to see that the complainant and her child, allegedly born through the petitioner, are to some extent given some relief) Direction regarding release of the amount will be issued later.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶49

“ Crime No.45 of 2013 ” occurring in the first line of the final order dated 07.03.2014 in B.A. 778/2014 is corrected and substituted as “ Crime No. 45 of 2014 ”, vide order dated 18.03.2014 in Crl.M.A. 2486/2014 in B.A. 778/2014.

¶50

jjj

Balamurugan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balamurugan 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

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Thomas @ Rarichan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Saleem Vs the State of Kerala

Moosa Haji Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala